Breast Friends?

[TidalWave46]

No, Amy Klobuchar and Idaho Senator Mike Crapo are not Breast Friends, but they are working together to reauthorize the EARLY Act. Breast Friends is simply one of the great organizations supporting and fighting alongside this bipartisan duo to secure more than nine million per year with it's main purpose being to help young and high-risk women better understand their bodies and advocate for their health.

Klobuchar, Crapo Introduce Legislation to Reauthorize Breast Cancer Awareness Funding

“We’ve come so far in the fight against breast cancer, but there is more we can do to ensure that all women — and especially young and high-risk women — have the information and support they need to protect themselves from this deadly disease,” Klobuchar said. “Our bipartisan bill will help to elevate breast cancer awareness and support critical research so that one day, we can finally eradicate breast cancer.”

Klobuchar.senate.gov

I'm very happy that Klobuchar is running for President. Sometimes it's the sausage makers that we know the least about. I put Klobuchar in that category. She really seems to get things done. The more I know about her the more I like her. I find her to be intelligent, likable, strong, stable and ambitious. Everything you would want in a president.

I hope you accept my fun little word play to draw attention to my post. I just want to drop some praise on Klobuchar. She is one of my favorite primary candidates.

Breast Friends

[Julinana]

1. Glad to read it here!

Thank you so much for this thread. Glad to know about it here.

[DrToast]

2. Thanks for the update!

I also believe Klobuchar is a strong candidate and would get things done.

[customerserviceguy]

3. They could have called it

Bosom Buddies. Tom Hanks would approve.

[TidalWave46]

4. Thanks for the smile.

[athena]

5. Mammograms do not provide breast health.

Seriously, is there any woman out there who is not bombarded with information about mammograms, and pressured, as soon as they reach the age of 39, to get annual screening mammograms?

The research shows that screening mammograms don't save lives:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921437/

If you really care about breast health, do your own research:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Mammograms/

This is just a handout to the mammogram industry. Don't be fooled. I am not against Senator Klobuchar, who would be much better for the country than Trump, but this is not the first time she has sided with industry over the interests of the people. What I care about is women, who should not be going through the pain and anxiety of mammograms, not to mention disfiguring overtreatment, without knowing the facts.

ETA: Note that the funding would be for "breast cancer awareness", not for research into breast cancer or breast cancer treatment.

[TidalWave46]

6. Thankfully, democrats voting on it will have actually read it. That makes a big difference.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1740/text

"This is just a handout to the mammogram industry. Don't be fooled."

Sad statement on your part. Truly sad. Thankfully the candidate you support will full back this in the end.

What I care about is women, who should not be going through the pain and anxiety of mammograms, not to mention disfiguring overtreatment, without knowing the facts.

ETA: Note that the funding would be for "breast cancer awareness", not for research into breast cancer or breast cancer treatment.

Kind of interesting that you almost piece it together.... but stop just short.

It is reassuring that you let me know that you think Klobuchar would be much better than Trump. I didn't know such a point of clarification was needed.

[athena]

8. You didn't watch the video I linked, did you?

I stand by my statement. The bill is nicely worded, but in the end, it's an attempt to expand mammograms to an even younger population.

There is a huge amount of money involved in the mammogram industry, which is why women 39 and older are being constantly pressured to get annual mammograms in spite of all the evidence showing that such mammograms don't save lives. I've had to stop seeing gynecologists because of their refusal to respect my informed, science-based reasons for not wanting a mammogram. There are ways to reduce breast cancer rates, and this bill, which is mostly about funding an ad campaign, will not accomplish that.

My message, more than anything, was an attempt to inform women about mammograms, and it's sad on your part that you would attack me for it for partisan reasons.

[TidalWave46]

9. Nothing I have stated is for partisan reasons, as you claim.

I am not the one who brought up Trump in the same sentence as Klobuchar. I'm not the one who is deliberately stating that this Act is something that it is not. I have brought the text, summaries, and show groups it is helping. So much of this goes to help women who are already diagnosed with breast cancer. Education to help them through the process. Support to help them through the process. Education to help them understand ways to know their risk factors.

Again, Warren and every single democrat will get on board with this. It simply makes sense.

At what minute does the video you reference discuss the Act?

[athena]

13. If you're not partisan, try actually reading what I posted.

You have taken my words out of context, and you have repeatedly attacked me. It's interesting that you would respond in this way, since my post was mainly about providing important information about mammograms.

Whether my candidate would support this bill is neither here nor there. My candidate did not introduce it. Unfortunately, the mammogram industry is so big and so powerful that it would be politically difficult to oppose it, especially since women have already been so mislead about mammograms.

The video, which you would have benefited personally from seeing, is not about the Act, and I never claimed it was. It is a video that aims to inform women and to help them decide for themselves whether they should get screening mammograms. The fact that you would oppose my attempt to inform women, while claiming to support a bill that aims to inform women, is quite interesting. I cannot imagine any reason for it other than that I'm dealing with someone who cannot stand any criticism of their candidate.

[TidalWave46]

14. This has just gotten strange.

The attacks just aren't there.

And I agree and stated as such that much of what you have brought has nothing to do with the Act. We are in agreement there.


"The fact that you would oppose my attempt to inform women, while claiming to support a bill that aims to inform women, is quite interesting."

I don't oppose any attempt of yours to "inform women." Please show me an op of yours "informing women" that I have opposed? Also, I do support this Act which we now agree does work to "inform women."

"since my post was mainly about providing important information about mammograms."

You actually directly used it as a way to erroneously attack this Act. That is not out of context.

"I cannot imagine any reason for it other than that I'm dealing with someone who cannot stand any criticism of their candidate."

What criticism of my candidate? You haven't put forward any valid criticism of this Act and I won't be voting for Klobuchar in the primary. I support democrats and progressives who push ford good measures like this one.

I have zero interest in attacking you. I don't even dislike you.

[TidalWave46]

7. Additional information.

Educational campaign. The Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act
of 2009 or EARLY Act amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), to conduct a national evidence‐based education campaign: (1) to increase public
awareness regarding the threats posed by breast cancer to young women, including the particular
risks faced by certain ethnic and cultural groups; and (2) focusing on awareness of risk factors and
achieving early detection through community‐centered informational forums, public service
advertisements, and media campaigns.

Multimedia campaign. Directs the Secretary to award grants to entities to establish national
multimedia campaigns that: (1) will encourage young women to be aware of their personal risk
factors, strategies for increasing early detection and self awareness, evidence based preventative
lifestyle changes, and other appropriate breast cancer early detection and risk reduction strategies;
(2) will encourage young women of specific higher‐risk populations to talk to their medical
practitioners about those risks and methods for appropriate screening and surveillance; and (3)
may include advertising through specified media.

Advisory Committee and other activities. Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of
CDC, to: (1) establish an advisory committee to assist in creating and conducting the public
education campaign; (2) conduct an education campaign to increase awareness among health care
professionals; and (3) conduct prevention research.

Grants. Directs the Secretary to award grants to organizations and institutions to provide to young
women diagnosed with breast cancer substantive assistance and health information from credible
sources on: (1) education and counseling regarding fertility preservation; (2) social, emotional,
psychosocial, financial, lifestyle, and caregiver support; (3) familial risk factors; and (4) risk
reduction strategies to reduce recurrence or metastasis.

primaryimmune.org

[athena]

10. If you actually read the bill,

"prevention research" has nothing whatsoever to do with actually preventing breast cancer occurrence:

“(c) Prevention research activities.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall conduct prevention research on breast cancer in younger women, including the following:

“(1) Behavioral and other research on the impact of breast cancer diagnosis on young women.

“(2) Formative research to assist with the development of educational messages and information for the public, targeted populations, and their families about breast cancer.

“(3) Surveys of physician and public knowledge, attitudes, and practices about breast cancer prevention and control in high-risk populations.

There are ways to save the lives of huge numbers of women, as the video I linked mentions towards the end -- not only from breast cancer but from heart disease, which kills many more women than breast cancer. But informing people about that would shrink the mammogram industry, so we can't have that. Instead, we'll just have more feel-good pink-ribbon campaigns, which keep that industry going.

If you're interested, you can read up on the hypocrisy of pink-ribbon campaigns online. But it's much easier to attack me, so go right ahead.

[TidalWave46]

11. It is not a heart disease Act.

I'm not attacking you. I simply disagree with the information you put forward as a way to attack this Act. Please note, there was an original point in this conversation where the word "fool" popped up. There was an original point in this conversation where things that have nothing to do with this Act were brought in to attack the act as something it is not. There was an initial point where Trump was brought into the conversation. Now you go as far as to minimize it as heart disease kills more women. That is, by definition, a fallacy.

I linked the full text of the Act as a reply to you. It covers more than what you put forward. But you know that. You have to in order to have copy and pasted one part of it.

Helping people who have already been diagnosed with cancer is a good thing. It is a big part of this, as I stated earlier.

[athena]

12. I have looked at the entire bill, which is almost completely about "awareness",

which translates into an a scare-mongering ad campaign for mammograms. I quoted the part I found the most misleading and hypocritical.

If the Senators want to prevent breast cancer deaths among young people and minority populations, why don't they fund research into preventing and treating breast cancer, not to mention finding diagnostic methods that are superior to mammograms? The mammogram industry, of course, would oppose this.

The bill also talks about providing education about breast self-exams, which have been shown by research to be completely useless in preventing breast-cancer deaths. Self-exams, in fact, are extremely unreliable and lead to unnecessary mammograms, ultrasounds, biopsies, and overtreatment. They also cause unnecessary anxiety in women.

I happen to believe that women have been made overly scared about breast cancer. As we all know by now, one out of every eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, but that means seven out of eight will not, and even the ones who are diagnosed will not necessarily die from it. The pink-ribbon "awareness" campaign has been so effective that American women are almost universally afraid of their breasts now -- so much so that some wealthy women are getting unnecessary double mastectomies as a "preventive" measure. I feel strongly that women should not be afraid of their breasts. Our breasts should make us happy, not terrified. Breast cancer is extremely rare in young women. This bill, which aims to fund an "awareness" campaign among younger women, really aims to terrify women at a younger age.

That is my opinion, and your hostility in calling it "sad", accusing me of not having read the bill, of not having thought about it, of being so misguided that even my candidate would disagree with me (I don't require that a candidate agree with all my views, so this is neither here nor there and is just an insult on your part against me), of having purposefully misrepresented it, of having (supposedly) called people fools, and of having (supposedly) compared Klobuchar to Trump, is not only a series of nasty attacks, but it is also unhelpful. You're not helping your own cause.