Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Several posts highlight significant points from the publication, such as the claim that 1.3 million women have been overdiagnosed with breast cancer, which many users describe using strong language like 'brutal medical practices' and 'misdiagnosed.' The tone suggests deep concern about the implications of mammography screening, as seen in discussions emphasizing the need for informed decisions and citing phrases like 'if mammograms were a drug, they would have been taken off the market decades ago.'
The discussions reflect mixed opinions about the findings, indicating a lack of strong consensus among participants.
A significant number of posts exhibit curiosity regarding the implications and statistics presented in the publication.
While some posts delve into statistical significance and implications, others display a more surface-level understanding of the topic.
The overall perception of the publication's influence on future screening practices appears moderate, with many acknowledging its importance.
Key point - we have to move on from the idea that simply finding more #cancers = good test. Classic study by Welch and team shows that increased #breastcancer screening led to huge increase in early stage, but not necessarily cutting late stage #3Dchat https://t.co/CzYb2txdhZ https://t.co/kF7Wwr8mAZ https://t.co/rI3VsKs2FE
Our cytopathologist, an expert in mammography screening, doesn't know who Archie Bleyer is, the professor of radiation oncology who published the first major study demonstrating the failure of mammography screening in the United States. https://t.co/B5WVdNKpK3 1/ https://t.co/01hhqngbpQ
@MercedesBiosca Se logran millones de supervivientes ¡a la brutalidad médica de los cribados! Un verdadero ejército de supervivientes al diagnóstico del cáncer de cribado. Con datos, el caso del cribado del cáncer de mama. ¡Pobres mujeres creyendo haber sido "salvadas"! https://t.co/MShsiRcjqn
Archie Bleyer était l’auteur du premier grand article sur les conséquences du dépistage mammographique aux Etats-Unis dans le New England https://t.co/8sWB1Ch3pB. Il m’a demandé si les choses se passaient de la même façon aux Etats-Unis qu'au Royaume Uni. 31/
Onaylandı: Ne kadar çok Mamogram alırsanız o kadar çok zarar verir https://t.co/2n9OIxIcVt
Although if we are finding tons more localized cancer, but not decreasing late stage disease, screening could actually increase costs dramatically #3Dchat (https://t.co/CzYb2txdhZ) https://t.co/hjN6Z83Dot https://t.co/GEDGLVJeve
This video explores a study on the relationship between dairy consumption and cancer risks in over 500,000 Chinese adults, highlighting significant correlations. The findings suggest that dairy may affect cancer risk…
This video examines a major study that investigates the relationship between dairy consumption and cancer risks in over 500,000 Chinese adults. Findings indicate a notable correlation between dairy intake and heightened…
High-fat diets are linked to an increased risk of cancers such as breast, colon, and pancreatic. Reducing total dietary fat intake can help lower cancer risk. Learn about dietary choices to promote health and longevity.
Y lo peor de todo es que está más que demostrado que los cribados masivos de cáncer de mama no disminuyen la mortalidad . Pero es un business brutal https://t.co/jntQT5LLCR
@DyerDebby @epochhealth https://t.co/JrtrJ2YvuF
RT @daniel_corcos: Our cytopathologist, an expert in mammography screening, doesn't know who Archie Bleyer is, the professor of radiation o…
RT @daniel_corcos: Our cytopathologist, an expert in mammography screening, doesn't know who Archie Bleyer is, the professor of radiation o…
Our cytopathologist, an expert in mammography screening, doesn't know who Archie Bleyer is, the professor of radiation oncology who published the first major study demonstrating the failure of mammography screening in the United States. https://t.co/B5WVdNKpK3 1/ https://t.co/01hhqngbpQ
@TotalCytopath @VPrasadMDMPH Which I don't know is true
@TotalCytopath What is the statistical significance of that? https://t.co/eCF13qYNtB
@TotalCytopath @SacksDisa Have you read it? It's about people over 75. Pay attention to the authors' name. It's Archie Bleyer, a radiation oncologist. Same as here. https://t.co/B5WVdNKpK3 Archie is
@TotalCytopath @SacksDisa In the US data, you can actually see a small decline. https://t.co/w6VhULX6dA
@PorculusVerus @MTL_AL7 @Hloan33 @T_Touche_A_Tout @BonNationaliste Pas vraiment : ils vont te diagnostiquer un cancer pour une tumeur bégnine par exemple. https://t.co/BAqtLWQu7c https://t.co/vi57E4IZCy
Archie Bleyer était le premier à avoir alerté sur la question du dépistage par mammographie aux États-Unis. https://t.co/w6VhULX6dA 2/
Dag @PedroFacon (screenshot want u hebt me geblokkeerd) waarom gebruikt u dit voorbeeld? Welke zijn de kosten/baten van deze screening? https://t.co/X8AW9Lolzv
@_nilikoo_ @drhamidahmadi https://t.co/lXspead34a من این موضوع رو از بحث توی کلاس استادی که دوسال پیش بود یادم مونده. و مبحث هم تأثیر غربالگریهای دورهای بر افزایش سرطان بود نه یک/دوبار انجام ماموگرافی. بااینحال فکر میکنم این مقاله کامل توضیح داده.
RT @DJAmberMay: According to New England Journal of Medicine 1.3 million have been misdiagnosed with breast cancer https://t.co/SMG35jz1mu
According to New England Journal of Medicine 1.3 million have been misdiagnosed with breast cancer https://t.co/SMG35jz1mu
@nikillinit @RampCapitalLLC moreover the definition of “cancer” has significantly widened over time We now have way higher sensitivity tools, so we catch many “cancers” that we never would’ve known about before Good data suggests many of these new “cancers” are actually harmless https://t.co/UePY2xQBXn
@Robdekoter @Net_Arts @NOS Hoe is dat een passende reactie? Je begrijpt de controverse overduidelijk niet. Lees dan op zijn minst dit óók: https://t.co/RfWgLYxryO
RT @hira__lena: Onaylandı: Ne kadar çok Mamogram alırsanız o kadar çok zarar verir https://t.co/2n9OIxIcVt
RT @hira__lena: Onaylandı: Ne kadar çok Mamogram alırsanız o kadar çok zarar verir https://t.co/2n9OIxIcVt
Onaylandı: Ne kadar çok Mamogram alırsanız o kadar çok zarar verir https://t.co/2n9OIxIcVt
@TakeitCome @matty_323 @Kaylara0wl @damintoell https://t.co/O1AuJCdZXI
@matty_323 @Kaylara0wl @damintoell https://t.co/O1AuJCdZXI
@SwissWatchGuy If mammograms were a drug, they would have been taken off the market decades ago. https://t.co/CtWz63oC4I https://t.co/aU66M2c584
@Juliesnark1731 https://t.co/zyMhqM4GNO https://t.co/T0E8PxBnrk
@PatriotNurse72 @Juliesnark1731 https://t.co/zyMhqM4GNO https://t.co/Otz7cbW4On
@sheilyta @toobaffled https://t.co/HbMYLfhlgm https://t.co/eLdPMXcCIE
@TheMurgy @RyanMarino @JenkinsBrevard It's coming. For now though let's focus on the culture of the Medical Industrial Complex that makes the abuse of patients for profit a problem for everyone both young and old. Exhibit A: "Over 1 million women treated for non-existent cancer." https://t.co/hoqIJPWbar
@mauveTriforce @cjgproduxions @greg_price11 It’s not a medical consensus? Like Covid was a medical consensus? Even though we’re now told to treat it like the common cold. Like 30% of women with breast cancer actually didn’t end up having breast cancer. That kind of medical consensus? https://t.co/t4lxAL9cfz
we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e.) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed. https://t.co/jQJATFNR8i
@lorenamar23 @soldidomenico La mejor forma es ir a los números. https://t.co/U7ijjMExXy La discusión más fuerte esta en los casos subclínicos, los que se conocen como 'hallazgos'. El problema ético (para el profesional) y para el paciente es simple. - Si no lo trato y se desarrolla no hice lo que tenia que
@_r_sr_ @LaF3nix @soldidomenico La agresividad de la patología en personas jóvenes es justamente una de las razones fundamentales por lo que es tan poco efectivo en menores de 50. https://t.co/0B7P1y6CkW https://t.co/U7ijjMExXy https://t.co/sWBtDKkWbz Los estudios poblacionales que hay hasta la fecha no han
1/5 Wprowadzenie mammografii przesiewowej w USA wiąże się corocznie z podwojeniem liczby wykrywanych raków piersi we wczesnym stadium, ze 112 do 234 przypadków na 100 000 kobiet, co oznacza bezwzględny wzrost o 122 przypadki na 100 000 kobiet, ale … https://t.co/UZx6eOUA8U
@RdLessTrvled @unhealthytruth @DoctorAnarchist There is a real risk but apparently small: https://t.co/5RpI45DxR3
Late diagnosis treatments do not reduce death. Early diagnosis 30% false positive. High insulin association. Get glucose and carbs out of diet. "Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence | New England Journal of Medicine" https://t.co/sZZNcQDnh0
@Drlipid Do we ignore carcinoma in situ? It might be appropriate in certain circumstances. https://t.co/9GepnjwbKI
@boxersforlife @Sassafrass_84 Be careful of mammograms and make informed decisions. While they have their place, think if it makes sense to throw cancer inducing radiation at cancer prone tissue on a regular basis. https://t.co/zyMhqM4GNO
"Breast cancer" incidence of women who underwent screening mammography vs breast cancer among women who didn't undergo screening. https://t.co/MoSFqLHBAE https://t.co/7dTOfBCxsj
@Michael59503746 @alt_text_bot https://t.co/lZiD7Lkm1j (Which is not to say that early detection isn't a good thing, but you can't assume that all of the cancers detected early would have progressed. See also changes in PSA screening.)
RT @JuanGrvas: @MercedesBiosca Se logran millones de supervivientes ¡a la brutalidad médica de los cribados! Un verdadero ejército de super…
@MercedesBiosca Se logran millones de supervivientes ¡a la brutalidad médica de los cribados! Un verdadero ejército de supervivientes al diagnóstico del cáncer de cribado. Con datos, el caso del cribado del cáncer de mama. ¡Pobres mujeres creyendo haber sido "salvadas"! https://t.co/MShsiRcjqn
@JacquesGrober21 @Inserm Après mon licenciement j'ai continué à travailler sur le sujet et j'ai attiré l'attention d'Archie Bleyer qui avait publié sur le sujet. https://t.co/8sWB1ChBf9 1/
@bordatbenoit @CarolineYADAN @EmilieChandler @SertinFreddy @Alexis_IZARD @JeanPierrePont @juliedelpech72 @Fanta_B @CaroitEleonore @ServaneHugues @LHeydelGrillere [Prière de me suivre si vous aimez:-)] Rebonjour Juste un lien concernant ces 1'300'000 Américaines diagnostiquées par erreur: Il s'agit d'un article des Dr Welch & Bleyer paru dans le New England J'al of Medicine:https://t.co/TZa54nQ4Cc Voir ci-dessous @Phyltis_ #octobrerose
@renkatroussier @Nico__Cotier Non ce n'est pas avéré efficace en population ou tout du moins ce n'est pas évident du tout. https://t.co/k4XGCngNJE https://t.co/IU3XKhx1FE https://t.co/PbxCFuwryK C'est vous qui êtes graves ça vous arrive de vous renseigner 5min?
@RichardEngel Never entrust a hospital doctor with a child's life Countless testings are biased. See NEJM article for an ex https://t.co/jU8TiJjlWW I promise people doing the blank-page exercise & deciding to stay away from drugs they may end up finding a winning protocol
@NicoKluger @AdeAdamson @NEJM
@detective_jimmy @Ayjchan @Inserm @TranspariMED @gijn @HealthSenseUK @_MiguelHernan @philippefroguel @DanChaltiel But the preprint attracted the attention of @ableyer who had already published on mammography screening https://t.co/8sWB1Ch3pB and we could publish another study in the New England, with the same conclusion as in the forbidden @biorxivpreprint . https://t.co/TQqr6tEYIX
@saada_vsaada @barriere_dr @dermatopoulos @DocArnica @FZores @Emm_BARRANGER @Le___Doc @CAudigierValett @fignon_laurent @drcmassard @HeudelPierre @Leleuolivier80 @Oxycontine1 @GroupeUnicancer Non. On est d'accord (enfin!) sur les faits, pas sur l'interprétation. Le 1er auteur de cet article en 2012 https://t.co/8sWB1Ch3pB est celui qui signe avec moi l'étude du NEJM en 2020 sur les + de 75 ans permettant d'attribuer l'excès de cancers aux radiations.
@docdu16 Donc avec 15 % de cancer parmi les cancers détectés par mammographies (un peu plus que dans les autres études par modélisation), on est très loin de l'excès de cancers massif observé après mise en place du dépistage. https://t.co/8sWB1Ch3pB
Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence | NEJM https://t.co/igpp8LCnaz
@grahamwalker This is not even remotely plausible to me. I hope your best evidence is not an abstract of a single institution study. The advent of mammography in the entire US saw a less than 10% decrease in incidence of late stage disease. (See https://t.co/I7J1hnO7of)…
@avadakedavra501 @escuderoalma Acerca de casos individuales, hay de todos los tipos. Por ejemplo: hacer mayor número de Mx equivale a aumentar el sobrediagnóstico, una amenaza real para quienes se someten a cribado de cáncer (no solo de mama). https://t.co/R0gfh9qeMg https://t.co/WgbvFvl3a6
@nenico62 @PJSubias @escuderoalma @HdAnchiano Por señalar uno de los grandes problemas en la detección temprana del cancer, quizá pueda interesarte esta referencia. Quizá algo técnica, pero las conclusiones son elocuentes. Referidas, sobre todo, a la mamografia https://t.co/R0gfh9qeMg
@emipizarro El rastreo es un concepto poblacional no individual. Lamentablemente el impacto de la intervención no es tan claro. El Length time bias es clave en esto. La mortalidad no parece cambiar (gracias a que en parte los tratamientos son mucho mejores) https://t.co/xxntYMwJMY
RT @daniel_corcos: Archie Bleyer était l’auteur du premier grand article sur les conséquences du dépistage mammographique aux Etats-Unis da…
Archie Bleyer était l’auteur du premier grand article sur les conséquences du dépistage mammographique aux Etats-Unis dans le New England https://t.co/8sWB1Ch3pB. Il m’a demandé si les choses se passaient de la même façon aux Etats-Unis qu'au Royaume Uni. 31/
@JaiKanta22 @drjohnm @icureiosity @VPrasadMDMPH @NateSilver538 Still have a problem with maths. Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020. Archie Bleyer in 2012 https://t.co/B5WVdNKpK3
#franceinter https://t.co/IA27XiiXZT
@awgaffney @MrWBond @Maratosflier @mikejohansenmd @hswapnil @pash22 https://t.co/VOaWGiL9pi & https://t.co/yurrbElOzL (efficacy, cost sharing, was woven into services covered and copayments)
@ShieldBody @PasquierDiego @philippefroguel Le "first" se rapporte à la première publication sur les chiffres réels de cancers induits par le dépistage mammographique. Mon collègue Archie Bleyer avait déjà publié dans le New England : https://t.co/B5WVdNKpK3
@guy_helio @PauloLotufo Outro que recomendo. "there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer." https://t.co/gEcpJyv1Kd
@MonroZiekenhuis Gilbert Welch: 'We conclude that the good news in breast cancer - decreasing mortality - must largely be the result of improved treatment, not screening. Ironically, improvements in treatment tend to deteriorate the benefit of screening.' https://t.co/JkU1s9xaaB
@BolognaFishMD welcome debate of value of breast cancer screening but there's no debate if we identify excess breast cancers that would otherwise go undetected w/o harm 16% overdiagnosis in RCT w/ 25 yrs f/up https://t.co/AqBxAoViXO Gilbert Welch et al estimate 31% https://t.co/530oDGkJKy
@Vilavaite @NEJM @amykpatel @DrGMcGinty @ESchattner @IoannisNL @RMilesMD @Teresa_Presa @etpisano Maybe should be aware that one of the authors is Archie Bleyer, a radiation oncologist, one the firsts to work on the mammography screening - breast cancer correlation in the USA. https://t.co/meN1Pk0dLN
Jau no 2006. gada vienā valstī pēc otras iznāca RCT dati... https://t.co/DjJjCHDOdv https://t.co/zXzvtKYpj3 ...norādot uz mammogrāfija lomu pie pāragras vēža diognasticēšanas. https://t.co/9CB2C01z8H -
RT @cpgYALE: Key point - we have to move on from the idea that simply finding more #cancers = good test. Classic study by Welch and team s…
Although if we are finding tons more localized cancer, but not decreasing late stage disease, screening could actually increase costs dramatically #3Dchat (https://t.co/CzYb2txdhZ) https://t.co/hjN6Z83Dot https://t.co/GEDGLVJeve
RT @cpgYALE: Key point - we have to move on from the idea that simply finding more #cancers = good test. Classic study by Welch and team s…
RT @cpgYALE: Key point - we have to move on from the idea that simply finding more #cancers = good test. Classic study by Welch and team s…
Key point - we have to move on from the idea that simply finding more #cancers = good test. Classic study by Welch and team shows that increased #breastcancer screening led to huge increase in early stage, but not necessarily cutting late stage #3Dchat https://t.co/CzYb2txdhZ https://t.co/kF7Wwr8mAZ https://t.co/rI3VsKs2FE
@Daniel_14788 @maldita_ciencia Y con evidencia, todo sea dicho... https://t.co/D8sWpu1gVK https://t.co/LAzvmSkFoe
@ShielaAppavoo @ESchattner @DrPaulaGordon @abcdiagnosis @CarolineKin @DrAttai https://t.co/LQRpTgHHCN
@erikbierzo @OMC_Espana y 3/ Los programas de mamografía de cribado son "máquinas" que dan de comer a muchos profesionales a costa de crear un ejército de mujeres que creen "haber sido salvadas del cáncer de mama", en falso. Son millones las mujeres engañadas, millones: https://t.co/MShsiRcjqn