Why the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Are Racist
Black women get breast cancer at younger ages, but the new breast-cancer guidelines entirely ignore that fact. This is the very definition of institutionalized racism.Full Story
#2 Nov 28, 2009
Strange how under the Administration of a black president, they still adopted the guidelines, knowing it to be racist. And the white liberals are screaming that all who oppose these racist guidelines are the racists for opposing Obama's death care scheme. Isn't it wonderful how the liberals said if a black guy got elected it would cure racism?
Since: Aug 09
#3 Nov 28, 2009
Umm...Isn't the new Surgeon General an African-American woman?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today that the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Dr. Regina Benjamin as the nationís Surgeon General
...making her the first African American woman to be ...
#4 Nov 28, 2009
Prepare to laugh. The trolls are out. Outright lies are IN.
First things first: the organization publishing the "cancer/mamogram" report is not, in strict terms, a government agency, although it's mission has been defined by the government and it is convened under the auspices of the government. In its operation, the organization is a collection of individuals from a variety of health professions.
Next, Alter Net is not a Black organization.
The remaining comments made by trolls are worthless. The key questions here are:
1._ Is Alter Net relaying correct info?
2. Does the raw data support Alter Net's conclusions?
3. What, after all, is the threat to African Americans.
1. No one disputes the accuracy of Alter Net's Report.
2. The raw data clearly indicates the average age women, on average, are victims of cancer. Whether one group contract cancer at an average age that is younger than another group is a question of fact. I have seen no argument that says otherwise.
3. The effect on Black women can be very, very serious. This commission has no enforcement power, but it is looked to by private agencies, e.g., insurance companies, hospital staff, etc. for guide lines. A Black woman who, under prior guidelines, would receive appropriate screening might well lose her life under the new guidelines.
In other words, if you are a Black woman and someone tells you that screening is not necessary, don't believe them. Get screened.
Since: Jan 08
#5 Nov 28, 2009
Excellent!!! Thank you for you insight and knowledge.
Since: Jun 09
#6 Nov 28, 2009
There was not one radiologist , gynecologist , or women's health care expert on the panel that came up with this brainstorm. Mainly pediatricians and general practice doctors , with a few "yes men" bureaucrats. You want nationalized Health Care , get used to more idiocy such as this.
I agree with poster #1 : What the hell does race have to do with breast cancer and how/how not to treat it successfully?
#7 Nov 28, 2009
1) This council is mandated by Public Law 915, and supplemented by governmental funding through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably an Oba-Mao paid for duck.
2) This "finding" effects all women, not just coloreds.
3) If you're a colored woman and they say the screening is necessary, you better be ready to pay for it out of your own pocket, just like a White woman will have to.
There's nothing really institutionally racist about rationing care to all women. It's called prep for ObamaVoodooCare, so get used to it.
But we'll keep laughing at you anyway, as you throw your poop out of your cages.
#8 Nov 28, 2009
Response to # 1. If you read my post, you will see that I acknowledged your first point. Also, I pointed out the limitations of the Commission. The Law mandated the "Commission.," but as such the "Commission" has no power other than compiling a list of recommendations. Compare that with, say, the IRS where an armend agent can enter your home, seize it and all of your property. In other words, all ducks are not created equal.
Response to #2. The government makes many laws that are specific to particular groups. The Voting Rights Act is one of them; the Supreme Court decision is another. To say that the finding affects all women is meaningless. The basic questions are "How" does the finding affect women? and What provisions are made for women who--on average-- contract cancer at ages earlier than the studies guidelines suggest?
Response to #3.
Look closely at number 3. Why is troll logic especially stupid on this particular point? If a woman is screened, and cancer prevented then the insurance companies pay out a comparatively small amount but if the cancer is allowed to mature, that same insurance company (or the taxpayer) might need to pay out a small fortune when the patient ends up in the hospital .
#9 Nov 29, 2009
Maybe if you all black women that eat horrible diets, NEVER exercise, took some responsbility for your OWN friggin lives, your heaalth may improve. I guess it is the big bad whitey that is holding you down and shoving food in your face
#10 Nov 29, 2009
Point #1- Considering that the insurance companies take their ques off this government funded...yet supposedly independent...panel of experts, and they now have the justification to refuse to cover necessary procedures, I would say that Duck has big nasty teeth all on it's own.
Point2- You need to look at the facts behind the whole "getting cancer earlier" argument. It is really hard to gauge that as fact considering that Blacks are often reluctant to do what's necessary at earlier ages to take care of themselves. Now the fact that Blacks regularly contract cancers that are more progressive and severe is readilt identifiable due to abhorrations in your genetic code. Chromosome 11. You aren't ready for that yet...but it's coming.
Point 3- Very transgressive observation of you wanting to be babysitted, but it doesn't reflect the facts of this situation. In fact, the finding of this council reflects quite the opposite. They, and this administration is seems as they fund this fiasco, are willing to allow your women to die. Where is the backlash from the administration against these findings? Do you believe that insurance companies are going to voluntarily fund "unnecessary" test now...as per the finds of this panel?
Why do negroes have so much trouble correlating facts as they are with what they think they are owed? The bottom line always turns out the same.
You aren't owed anything. It isn't about you at all. You have no meaning.
#12 Nov 30, 2009
1.) I do agree that the denial of testing may have a lethal affect on African American women. That, after all is the point: the point of the article as well as the point of those who are questioning this particular recommendation. My distinction vis a vis comparative power was in response to the notion that that Commission is more than some suggest it is. Obviously, if individuals want to view the recommendations as mandatory, and interpret them as such, they have every right to do so--so long as they are not hurting others.
2.) Genetics? If an argument isn't relevant, why bring it up? I do agree that many Black women who should get tested, for a variety of reasons, do not. All the more reason, in my view, to increase funding for education. The problem isn't,by the way, a Black or a female problem--it's a national problem. Many, many men (prostate) and women don't get tested until it's too late.
3.) To suggest that Black women want to be dependents is to say that the millions upon millions of women tested prior to the change in guidelines want to be dependent. Ridiculous! I can't speak for the administration or others. Personally, I value women (all women) and believe that every possible precaution should be taken to insure that each has a healthy and prosperous life. I can't speak for insurance companies, but the practice-- in the past-- has been for insurance companies to adopt the recommendations.
Why do folks from all walks of life get flu vaccinations, yearly check ups, exercise and eat healthy foods? It this part that you don't fully comprehend. Screening is a form of prevention. In direct contradiction to your point of view regarding dependence, prevention brings INDEPENDENCE from flu, typhoid, cholera, measles, tuberculosis, etc. A few isolated religious cults and--of course racist may disapprove. In short testing, vaccinations and measures to protect health are antithetical to your entire notion of "dependence." Screening is, in every sense, a rational response to disease, ranking with any other disease preventive measure.
It is, in this sense, that your entire argument seems to be poorly thought out and self contradictory. This sloppiness stands out at the very end when you use broad,sweeping generalities and then end with what appears to be a self deprecating comment--as if you were speaking to a mirror.
#13 Nov 30, 2009
Obesity is a national problem. Your post represents the author as a victim of another national problem. Ignorance.
#15 Sep 24, 2013
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.
Add your comments below
|Plastic surgery's affordable to all (Apr '06)||Feb 26||Andrea C||167|
|'Mammograms hurt' column draws ire -- OrlandoSe... (Aug '07)||Feb 22||An apple a day||184|
|Varicose Veins: Fact, Fiction, & Cure (Mar '14)||Feb 12||Steph is I||18|
|Cancer patient to regrow lost breast (Mar '14)||Feb 11||Keyster||3|
|Breast cancer treatments could increase risk of... (Feb '14)||Feb 10||sakshi11||3|
|I'm scared I might have male breast cancer =(!(... (Oct '06)||Feb 7||Sage||868|
|Study links new genetic anomalies to breast can...||Feb 5||coretta||2|
Find what you want!
Search Breast Cancer Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC