Seems our methods are ineffective so eh let’s just quit

I am so angry I’m not sure I have the proper words.

“Mammograms are most effective from 60-69 years”.

Riiiight.

Here’s a good idea-let’s find something that IS effective before age 60 instead of just recommending we let the cancer sit in our freakin‘ boobs for 20 years until the damn exam can pick it up.

Is any woman reading this surprised that they aren’t as effective on younger breasts? I’ll answer for you-NO because EVERY PUBLICATION FOR WOMEN in the last 10 years has told me that we have denser breasts when we are younger and therefore probably need digital mammography. We know regular ones don’t always pick it up. We know they sometimes cause misdiagnosis. I’m sorry that costs you too much money Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Maybe instead of spending your money on panels that “research” to tell you what WE ALREADY KNOW, we should be spending our money figuring out HOW to increase early detection or how to make the tools that are good for early detection more cost effective so we can get rid of this freakin‘ thing early and often.

Big Insurance: I am OK with you trying to save yourself some money. I am even OK with you looking at ways to make sure you’re not paying for things that are unnecessary, just not at the expense of women’s lives.

Can any woman reading this NOT name a person they know who fought and survived cancer, even specifically breast cancer, because of early detection and aggressive treatment? I can think of three that I know of in the last six months. Three. All younger than sixty. All fighters. All survivors. All of whom would now be living with Cancer silently attacking their body if it weren’t for mammograms.

So yeah. I’m mad. And apparently I did have the words.