I am an at-home mother of six children, five of whom are now adults. I've been married for 33 years and my children range from 17 to 29. This blog is about faith, family, and life, with occasional rants about politics and other hot-button issues for me. I am Catholic and by that I mean I believe in faithfulness to the Magisterium.
Reflections on life, faith, family and the times we live in
... by a mom at home raising kids.
Instead, the study "found no reduction in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening," the scientists wrote, "neither in women aged 40-49 at study entry nor in women aged 50-59."No reduction in mortality? Then why would I have a mammogram? It gets worse.
In addition to not reducing mortality from breast cancer, the study found, mammograms are leading to an epidemic of what the researchers call "over-diagnosis." Nearly 22 percent of the invasive cancers detected by mammography were harmless, meaning they would not cause symptoms or death during a woman's lifetime.
For women in their 50s, 10 breast-cancer deaths would be averted for every 10,000 women screened annually for 10 years. For women in their 60s, 42 breast-cancer deaths would be averted. But as many as 137 women in their 50s, and 194 in their 60s would be diagnosed and treated unnecessarily.
But in countries such as those in North America and Europe ..., the scientists wrote, "our results support the views of some commentators that the rationale for screening by mammography should be urgently reassessed by policy makers," since annual mammography "does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care."
An accompanying editorial agrees that policy makers should stop pushing mammograms but points out that this is easier said than done: "governments, research funders, scientists, and medical practitioners may have vested interests in continuing" that push, since mammography is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Annual screenings also give women the sense that they are taking active steps to reduce the chance of dying of breast cancer.I am in neither a medical field nor am I an expert in statistics. Am I missing something? Seems to me mammograms are not worth it.
Defying Western warnings, Russia has continued to reposition and augment its forces on the border of eastern Ukraine, according to U.S. officials, raising fears of a wider confrontation.Excuse me. "Take a pain reliever?" No one. NO ONE! would have ever said that to Ronald Reagan. Ever. Nor do I think it would have ever been said of George W. Bush. Certainly, no one would have ever talked to Ronald Reagan like that. Why? Because of his personal strength, his stature as a leader, and his courage. The world knew that Reagan would act militarily if necessary.
Russia's Foreign Ministry on Friday dismissed the allegations as invented, saying that Western officials should "take a pain reliever."
The question of Crimea's future also appeared to be largely drowned out during the diplomacy Sunday. U.S. officials had only a few weeks ago been demanding Putin reverse his annexation of the territory and pull back his troops. Mr. Kerry didn't mention Crimea during his remarks-- giving the impression that the U.S. has largely given up reversing the region's absorption into Russia.It appears that our demand that Putin reverse his annexation was just talk. A handful of Russian officials got a slap on the wrist-- some passport restrictions to the U.S. and monetary restrictions on U.S. accounts, actions that were mocked on twitter by several of the officials themselves. Then Russia was kicked out of the G-8, an action Putin said he did not care about. And Kerry has not not even made the annexation of Crimea part of the negotiations? Not even part of the discussion? The Russians are running diplomatic circles around us. It appears that they got away with the annexation of Crimea. If they want more territory, why should they stop there? It's no wonder Russia's Foreign Ministry feels free to mock us.
This morning, 27 March 2014, the Hon. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States of America, was received in audience by His Holiness Pope Francis, after which he met with His Eminence Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, and Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.During the cordial meetings, views were exchanged on some current international themes and it was hoped that, in areas of conflict, there would be respect for humanitarian and international law and a negotiated solution between the parties involved. In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform. Finally, the common commitment to the eradication of trafficking of human persons in the world was stated.In contrast, the White House has issued this text of President Obama answering questions about the meeting.
Mr. President, I just want to follow up on Jim’s question on your meeting with the Pope today. Do you think some of the schisms that he referenced on social issues would stand in the way of you and Pope Francis collaborating or forming a strategic alliance to tackle income inequality?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, I just want to make clear -- maybe it wasn’t clear from my answer to Jim -- that we actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness. In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.