Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   New mammogram study prompts cleavage among medical community   (realclear.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Canadian Studies, mammograms, visual routine, breast exams, radiologists, dispute  
•       •       •

4268 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:13 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-13 08:55:48 AM  
Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.
 
2014-02-13 10:18:04 AM  
Interesting. Last month I went to get the girls checked, since the dreaded 40 is on the horizon and the technician at the clinic told me they've stopped doing mammograms on women under sixty and prefer to do ultrasounds instead. She said things were changing and I would probably never have to have one in my lifetime, that even if I had a lump or issue, they would use ultrasound and x-rays to investigate instead of a mammogram.
 
2014-02-13 10:18:12 AM  
Routine Mammograms, a great band name
 
2014-02-13 10:18:29 AM  
Just in case someone needed some help understanding the headline:

www.herald.co.zw
 
2014-02-13 10:19:54 AM  
I bet a visual inspection would be almost as good anyways. BIE? EIP!
 
2014-02-13 10:20:25 AM  

johnny_vegas: Just in case someone needed some help understanding the headline:


I still don't get it. Need more hints.
 
2014-02-13 10:22:00 AM  
Can anybody play?
www.adweek.com
 
2014-02-13 10:23:02 AM  
This might be a bookmark, who can tell?

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 10:24:13 AM  
BIE? EIP!


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 10:24:30 AM  

chozo13: This might be a bookmark, who can tell?

[img.fark.net image 720x960]


Is there a girl under all that artificial coloring?
 
2014-02-13 10:25:14 AM  

GoldSpider: chozo13: This might be a bookmark, who can tell?

[img.fark.net image 720x960]

Is there a girl under all that artificial coloring?


Maybe, I have yet to stray my eyes up or down so she might not even have eyes.
 
2014-02-13 10:25:34 AM  
I see I can retire now, knowing my efforts furthering humanity will be carried on by those who follow.
 
2014-02-13 10:27:54 AM  

Sybarite: Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.


Or an attempt by the Canadian and US governments to control  costs -fewer tests fewer government expenditures on tests for those it  covers.

Is t it a coincidence that with that U. S. government studies recommending fewer mammograms and prostate screening came out with passaged of Obamacare?
 
2014-02-13 10:29:56 AM  
Alrighty, let's get this over with.
i215.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 10:30:51 AM  
Ultrasounds are quicker and give a better picture anyway. I am surprised that I don't see more of the portable ultrasounds out there. They save time and the bigger picture: Money
 
2014-02-13 10:30:53 AM  
I wouldn't say they're useless.  But I would say no screening until 50 or older.


/cancer researcher
 
2014-02-13 10:36:37 AM  

Haplo127x: Interesting. Last month I went to get the girls checked, since the dreaded 40 is on the horizon and the technician at the clinic told me they've stopped doing mammograms on women under sixty and prefer to do ultrasounds instead. She said things were changing and I would probably never have to have one in my lifetime, that even if I had a lump or issue, they would use ultrasound and x-rays to investigate instead of a mammogram.


mammograms are x-rays.  they are a take-off of the old xeroradiography, which also used x-rays.  mammo's are much more detailed than the old xero's...

i feel for ladies in this issue.  they don't know what to do.  i've  been in the biz for 30 years, and every time one of these "studies" is published we get literally hundreds of phone calls about what to do.  hell, even radiologists and surgeons can't agree...how are ladies supposed to know?

stuhayes2010: I wouldn't say they're useless.  But I would say no screening until 50 or older.


/cancer researcher


it's not that i disagree.....but, i've seen literally hundreds of women under that who have had their lives saved or prolonged because of mammo's.

alice_600: Ultrasounds are quicker and give a better picture anyway. I am surprised that I don't see more of the portable ultrasounds out there. They save time and the bigger picture: Money


alice_600: Ultrasounds are quicker and give a better picture anyway. I am surprised that I don't see more of the portable ultrasounds out there. They save time and the bigger picture: Money


no, they don't give a better picture.  they give a DIFFERENT picture.  usually when ultrasound is used it is to confirm a lesion that was depicted by mammo's.  if you want to increase the sensitivity AND specificity you don't use ultrasound...you use mri.  i've done HUNDREDS of breast mri, and the sensitivity is incredible.  as well as the sensitivity.
 
2014-02-13 10:37:02 AM  
The Society of Breast Imaging? I envy their business cards.
 
2014-02-13 10:39:58 AM  

hasty ambush: Sybarite: Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.

Or an attempt by the Canadian and US governments to control  costs -fewer tests fewer government expenditures on tests for those it  covers.

Is t it a coincidence that with that U. S. government studies recommending fewer mammograms and prostate screening came out with passaged of Obamacare?


No. Been hearing for years how mammograms aren't as effective as marketed. The difference is that there is more accountability for screening effectiveness so we are going to be seeing more old news repackaged to promote awareness.

My personal bugaboo is MRIs for sprained ankles and wrists. They add no value to the healing process and can cost over $5000 to provide a "positive diagnosis" after a $100 xray shows no fracture. Mammograms aren't nearly so wasteful but there's a boobies lobby so they get grants for studies.
 
2014-02-13 10:41:41 AM  
Christ, every study of mammograms ever conducted has shown them to be a waste of time and money. The first one I read about this was way back in 1986. They are still around because the make a lot of $$$$$$. My wife refuses them, even though her doctor tries to scare her with breast cancer. Everyone she has ever had has been perfectly normal. I examine her breasts. There is nothing there but normal breast tissue and excitement for me.
 
2014-02-13 10:41:48 AM  

Sybarite: Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.


I support grabbing big titties.

/ I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about
 
kth
2014-02-13 10:47:47 AM  
Can we decide this soon? Like, say, before 7:30 am on March 10?

...for a friend

/last time sent pictures of the images to husband with tag line: boobie pictures.
 
2014-02-13 10:48:52 AM  

BolloxReader: My personal bugaboo is MRIs for sprained ankles and wrists. They add no value to the healing process and can cost over $5000 to provide a "positive diagnosis" after a $100 xray shows no fracture.


want to avoid this?   find a clinician who has NO financial interest in the mri or ct scanner.  it's amazing how many more cross-sectional studies are indicated when the ordering doc owns the scanner.  self-referral is the 2nd biggest cost in imaging, behind only defensive medicine.
 
2014-02-13 10:51:01 AM  
The male equivalent money grabber: prostate specific antigen test. Completely useless in predicting prostate cancer.
 
2014-02-13 11:00:01 AM  
I for one would prefer to have an ultrasound instead of a mammogram, if it was proven to be more effective at finding cancer. The whole process is so unbelievably painful for me that I usually come close to fainting after the first one, and I dread it when the time comes to go again for a checkup. I'll add to the list of women who say "if men had to have mammograms, you can bet that the process would be painless!"
 
2014-02-13 11:01:21 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-13 11:03:47 AM  
Hello boys, how are you?
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-02-13 11:04:22 AM  

hasty ambush: Is t it a coincidence that with that U. S. government studies recommending fewer mammograms and prostate screening came out with passaged of Obamacare?


Yes.
 
2014-02-13 11:05:15 AM  

iheartscotch: Sybarite: Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.

I support grabbing big titties.

/ I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about


Big Titty's been grabbing my money for years, $1 at a time.
 
2014-02-13 11:07:34 AM  

Dr Dreidel: iheartscotch: Sybarite: Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.

I support grabbing big titties.

/ I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about

Big Titty's been grabbing my money for years, $1 at a time.


Cheapskate.  I stick $20's in there.
 
2014-02-13 11:08:08 AM  

Haplo127x: Interesting. Last month I went to get the girls checked, since the dreaded 40 is on the horizon and the technician at the clinic told me they've stopped doing mammograms on women under sixty and prefer to do ultrasounds instead. She said things were changing and I would probably never have to have one in my lifetime, that even if I had a lump or issue, they would use ultrasound and x-rays to investigate instead of a mammogram.


That makes sense. I had 2 mammograms (dudes, having your boobie pinched between 2 slabs of really cold metal while achieving bizarre poses hurts. Probably not as much as cancer, but still. Yes, I know, first world problems.) and both times I had to have the ultrasound because they saw a calcification (which was never anything). (The ultrasound is better but they dig with the wand and the gel is kinda gross.)
 
2014-02-13 11:08:42 AM  

stir22: it's not that i disagree.....but, i've seen literally hundreds of women under that who have had their lives saved or prolonged because of mammo's.


No you haven't. Learn how to maths.
 
2014-02-13 11:09:48 AM  

johnny_vegas: Just in case someone needed some help understanding the headline:

[www.herald.co.zw image 850x637]


I don't get it. I can't quite understand. Maybe more examples might help...

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 11:09:49 AM  

MBooda: Dr Dreidel: iheartscotch: Sybarite: Routine mammograms are just a money grab by Big Titty.

I support grabbing big titties.

/ I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about

Big Titty's been grabbing my money for years, $1 at a time.

Cheapskate.  I stick $20's in there.


and you both ended up at the same place, sticky britches blvd
 
2014-02-13 11:10:51 AM  
Two very interesting books that put proactive screening in a different light
http://www.amazon.com/Should-Be-Tested-Cancer-Maybe/dp/0520248368/re f= sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392307674&sr=1-1&keywords=should+i+be+test ed+for+cancer

http://www.amazon.com/Overdiagnosed-Making-People-Pursuit-Health/dp/ 08 07021997/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392307674&sr=1-2&keywords=sho uld+i+be+tested+for+cancer

The short of it is that in a majority of cases it is a waste of money and in some cases it can lead to misdiagnosis that leads to unneeded surgery. Granted there are people that it saves but on a bigger scale it is just marketing hype.
 
2014-02-13 11:15:56 AM  
This thread is relevant to my interests.

I would be willing to inspect any and all BIE sent to EIP.

In other words, Show them to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh2PjkzW20w

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 11:21:44 AM  

There's Always A Bloody Ghost: I for one would prefer to have an ultrasound instead of a mammogram, if it was proven to be more effective at finding cancer. The whole process is so unbelievably painful for me that I usually come close to fainting after the first one, and I dread it when the time comes to go again for a checkup. I'll add to the list of women who say "if men had to have mammograms, you can bet that the process would be painless!"


Mammograms are painful?  I always thought you stick your boob in a machine and it scans you...

... Okay, so a GIS tells me the boob gets really squished in there.  How the hell do you do a mammogram on a woman with small boobs?
 
2014-02-13 11:29:52 AM  

Haplo127x: Interesting. Last month I went to get the girls checked, since the dreaded 40 is on the horizon and the technician at the clinic told me they've stopped doing mammograms on women under sixty and prefer to do ultrasounds instead. She said things were changing and I would probably never have to have one in my lifetime, that even if I had a lump or issue, they would use ultrasound and x-rays to investigate instead of a mammogram.


I can certainly understand preferring ultrasound.  Last year they found a lump on my wife's mammogram and what was the next step?  Ultrasound to confirm.  (End result:  Caught before it was dangerous.)

I disagree about the last sentence, though--mammograms *ARE* x-rays!
 
2014-02-13 11:29:53 AM  

Mell of a Hess: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 398x367]


That's still one of the best pictures of all time. Gemma something is her name.
 
2014-02-13 11:33:09 AM  

impaler: stir22: it's not that i disagree.....but, i've seen literally hundreds of women under that who have had their lives saved or prolonged because of mammo's.

No you haven't. Learn how to maths.


actually, i have.
 
2014-02-13 11:34:58 AM  

EdVenture: This thread is relevant to my interests.

I would be willing to inspect any and all BIE sent to EIP.

In other words, Show them to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh2PjkzW20w


img.fark.net

Who is this? Those things look like they're ready to spill
 
2014-02-13 11:37:15 AM  

Loren: Haplo127x: Interesting. Last month I went to get the girls checked, since the dreaded 40 is on the horizon and the technician at the clinic told me they've stopped doing mammograms on women under sixty and prefer to do ultrasounds instead. She said things were changing and I would probably never have to have one in my lifetime, that even if I had a lump or issue, they would use ultrasound and x-rays to investigate instead of a mammogram.

I can certainly understand preferring ultrasound.  Last year they found a lump on my wife's mammogram and what was the next step?  Ultrasound to confirm.  (End result:  Caught before it was dangerous.)

I disagree about the last sentence, though--mammograms *ARE* x-rays!


As a practicing Xray tech... this is correct.

/also, DUH.
//glad they caught it early. congrats.
 
2014-02-13 11:40:59 AM  

stuhayes2010: I wouldn't say they're useless.  But I would say no screening until 50 or older.


/cancer researcher


I know of at least 8 women who have had breast cancer (in my social circle), and at least 2 of them were around 40 at the time. One I think was late 30's, but it is had to tell because it was my friend's mom and she had died before I met him, and he doesn't like to talk about it.
 
2014-02-13 11:43:14 AM  
I would like to feel I'm above creating a bookmark or pointing out I have EIP if BIE was available...
 
2014-02-13 11:45:17 AM  
www.bellazon.com
cdn.buzznet.com

/ saw this lady in a movie and thought she was pretty, and then GISed her to find out she had modeled pictures that were applicable to this thread.
 
2014-02-13 11:45:18 AM  

stir22: impaler: stir22: it's not that i disagree.....but, i've seen literally hundreds of women under that who have had their lives saved or prolonged because of mammo's.

No you haven't. Learn how to maths.

actually, i have.


I'm a breast imager and I usually see at around one cancer a day, either as screening pick up or someone feels a lump. (we are a fairly high volume center).  So that's about 5 a week, or about 250 a year.  I've been doing this job for about 10 years, so it's true to say that I've seen "hundreds" of cancers.  A large number of those cancers were found using mammograms and nearly all of those women (and a few men) have survived their cancer.  So it is certainly true to say that your average breast imager has seen literally hundreds of women who have had their lives saved or prolonged because of mammography.
 
2014-02-13 11:53:21 AM  
I'd say, first at 30. second at 35. next at 37, then 39, 41, 43, 45, and annually after that.
 
2014-02-13 11:55:56 AM  

Vertdang: Mell of a Hess: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 398x367]

That's still one of the best pictures of all time. Gemma something is her name.


Atkinson
 
2014-02-13 11:59:08 AM  
Merch Tard:  I know of at least 8 women who have had breast cancer (in my social circle), and at least 2 of them were around 40 at the time. One I think was late 30's, but it is had to tell because it was my friend's mom and she had died before I met him, and he doesn't like to talk about it.

Right, and what the study is saying is that those women would have caught the cancer with or without the mammogram.  In fact, with the mammogram, about 22% of them would have had false positives involving possibly disfiguring procedures.   (Sorry about your friend's Mom btw.  That sounds rough.)
 
2014-02-13 12:02:23 PM  
yes you still die!  go figure eh?

but with a mammogram you might wind up living for years before you do
because you caught the cancer early.

duh.
 
2014-02-13 12:03:25 PM  
So this thread is about what... I'm just not getting it
 
2014-02-13 12:05:29 PM  
www.sexifinder.com
 
2014-02-13 12:06:47 PM  
BIE is a long extinct animal.
Prove me wrong, ladies.  Prove me wrong.
 
2014-02-13 12:08:24 PM  
Perfect Naturals:

http://www.redtube.com/399154  NSFW!!
 
2014-02-13 12:15:37 PM  
Put the money toward prevention and a cure.
 
2014-02-13 12:18:41 PM  

espiaboricua: EdVenture: This thread is relevant to my interests.

I would be willing to inspect any and all BIE sent to EIP.

In other words, Show them to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh2PjkzW20w

[img.fark.net image 245x245]

Who is this? Those things look like they're ready to spill


Anna Semenovich

Here's another

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 12:29:00 PM  
QFTA:

After 25 years of follow-up, about 500 in each group died, suggesting mammograms were not saving lives.


I'm amazed at the insensitive conclusion drawn. Nobody lives forever. Life is terminal. The point is if you catch cancers early, the rest of your life might be longer, healthier, more productive, more enjoyable...

But, yeah, about the same number died in each group, so no early care for you. No, missy. Now go off and die miserably  and send in a patient with a penis so we can do some real health care here.
 
2014-02-13 12:32:11 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: QFTA:

After 25 years of follow-up, about 500 in each group died, suggesting mammograms were not saving lives.

I'm amazed at the insensitive conclusion drawn. Nobody lives forever. Life is terminal. The point is if you catch cancers early, the rest of your life might be longer, healthier, more productive, more enjoyable...

But, yeah, about the same number died in each group, so no early care for you. No, missy. Now go off and die miserably  and send in a patient with a penis so we can do some real health care here.


There's also the cook meth plan.
 
2014-02-13 12:56:50 PM  
bie, eip
we can all have dreams
 
2014-02-13 01:18:19 PM  

stir22: it's not that i disagree.....but, i've seen literally hundreds of women under that who have had their lives saved or prolonged because of mammo's.


If you saw hundreds of women who had their lives saved or prolonged by mammograms then you saw THREE hundreds who were treated unnecessarily or who had the pleasure of knowing they had untreatable cancer for a longer period of time. The data is clear. If mammograms 'saved lives' then the group who does them regularly would be expected to have a longer life expectancy vs the group that does not do them, right? They do not and it is not up for debate.
 
2014-02-13 01:23:09 PM  
Is this where we ask about BiE?
 
2014-02-13 01:25:30 PM  

MechTard: I know of at least 8 women who have had breast cancer (in my social circle), and at least 2 of them were around 40 at the time. One I think was late 30's, but it is had to tell because it was my friend's mom and she had died before I met him, and he doesn't like to talk about it.


Part of the problem is komen's relentless campaign to change the definition of 'cancer' in order to have more positive diagnoses and thus more 'survivors', many of whom never had cancer in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-brea st -cancer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Best article I've seen on the topic - by a survivor who has changed their mind about screening.
 
2014-02-13 01:50:06 PM  

Mell of a Hess: Hello boys, how are you?
[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 236x284]


I love me some ass, but let's face it: I'm a breast man.  Keep 'em coming folks.
 
2014-02-13 01:54:33 PM  
As this story makes the rounds on the web it is pretty funny to see the comments. Half of them involve obamacare. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it - just employ Occam's razor - which clearly says that Obama started three major studies - in the UK, The US, and finally in Canada - some time around 1980. And then he had them all cook the books and show that mammograms are next to useless just in case he ever got elected president and sponsored a health care bill. The man's reach is enormous and his planning skills rival the batman.
 
2014-02-13 02:06:40 PM  

JohnBigBootay: The data is clear. If mammograms 'saved lives' then the group who does them regularly would be expected to have a longer life expectancy vs the group that does not do them, right? They do not and it is not up for debate.


Let's look at the data:

mammograms - 666 cancers
no mammograms - 524 cancers

After 5 years
mammograms - ???
no mammograms - ???

After 25 years
mammograms - 500 deaths
no mammograms - 500 deaths

Wanna fill in those blanks for me?  Because it might matter a ton.  Also, the mammograms were performed in 1990.  At best, this means women who got mammograms in 1990 were wasting their time.  Should we take a nice trip back to 1990 and look at the technology we had back then?  Because you're assuming the technology hasn't gotten any better.  Hey look, computers are about the same!

www.vectronicsappleworld.com
 
2014-02-13 02:12:02 PM  
www.blogcdn.com
 
2014-02-13 02:15:12 PM  
www.blogcdn.com
 
2014-02-13 02:20:49 PM  
lennavan:

Wanna fill in those blanks for me?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-brea st -cancer.html?pagewanted=all

There you go. This is hardly the first study (or largest) saying the same thing. You want to get one, get one - I don't care.
 
2014-02-13 02:34:12 PM  

lennavan: There's Always A Bloody Ghost: I for one would prefer to have an ultrasound instead of a mammogram, if it was proven to be more effective at finding cancer. The whole process is so unbelievably painful for me that I usually come close to fainting after the first one, and I dread it when the time comes to go again for a checkup. I'll add to the list of women who say "if men had to have mammograms, you can bet that the process would be painless!"

Mammograms are painful?  I always thought you stick your boob in a machine and it scans you...

... Okay, so a GIS tells me the boob gets really squished in there.  How the hell do you do a mammogram on a woman with small boobs?


Very very carefully. From what I understand, the smaller the boob, the more uncomfortable the process can be. Mine aren't small, but the position that squeezes them on an angle is painful. Only lasts for a few seconds, though.

I don't have any risk factors, other than having boobs, but my family doc was adamant that I get mammograms the second I turned 40.
 
2014-02-13 02:43:48 PM  
Oh, and I don't want anyone who wants a freakin' mammogram to not get a mammogram. I do want people to educate themselves on the previously poorly understood risk associated with them. And read up on 'cancer'. DCIS is NOT cancer, despite Komen's crusade to call everything cancer in order to feed the fundraising machine.
 
2014-02-13 02:52:59 PM  
great sweater meat!!
 
2014-02-13 03:46:09 PM  
Unashamed bookmark.
 
2014-02-13 03:47:54 PM  

skinbubble: Unashamed boobkmark.


FTFY
 
2014-02-13 03:53:20 PM  
I there will be more pics :(
 
2014-02-13 04:05:37 PM  
img.izismile.com
 
2014-02-13 04:07:53 PM  
www.bromygod.com
 
2014-02-13 04:09:44 PM  

Mell of a Hess: [img.izismile.com image 240x320]


Now this is how it is done. After a couple of almost was titty threads this week we finally have a real contender.
 
2014-02-13 04:09:53 PM  
www.esreality.com
 
2014-02-13 04:17:39 PM  
img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-02-13 04:46:27 PM  

Haplo127x: Interesting. Last month I went to get the girls checked, since the dreaded 40 is on the horizon and the technician at the clinic told me they've stopped doing mammograms on women under sixty and prefer to do ultrasounds instead. She said things were changing and I would probably never have to have one in my lifetime, that even if I had a lump or issue, they would use ultrasound and x-rays to investigate instead of a mammogram.


I had a lump a few years ago and they sent me for an ultrasound- but because of the location, they couldn't see properly.  That's when they gave me a mammogram.  They concluded that it was a milk duct that was plugged up with milk and had been for months after I stopped breastfeeding suddenly.  But god, did I hate the mammogram.
 
2014-02-13 08:07:56 PM  

Mell of a Hess: Perfect Naturals:

http://www.redtube.com/399154  NSFW!!


Mother of God. . .
 
2014-02-13 09:47:07 PM  
I'll just leave this right here.
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-13 10:01:32 PM  
I guess two more can't hurt!
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-13 11:37:35 PM  

Besthubbyevar: I guess two more can't hurt!
[i.imgur.com image 500x750]


Who's she?
 
2014-02-14 12:57:14 AM  
fun bags.
 
2014-02-14 06:07:59 AM  
I am just waiting for them to find that prostate exams are the same. In the book I cited above it mentions a study where they looked at a large number of male cadavers that had died of other causes than cancer and they found a very high percentage had "abnormally large" prostates. Their conclusion was that more men have prostate cancer than thought and that just because you have it doesn't mean you will die from it. Basically in general prostate cancer is a very slow growing cancer and that the people who die from it usually die from it even with regular screening as those are so aggressive by the time it gets seen at the next screening it is too late. Because let's be honest a GP sticking his finger up an orifice is not the accurate way of diagnosing. Sure if you are lucky they may see/feel something if they aren't thinking about their next golf game and maybe something that looks strange but isn't harmful will not get diagnosed as bad "just to err on the side of caution" by a specialist (which as also mentioned elsewhere above happens quite often)
 
2014-02-14 03:58:49 PM  

John Buck 41: Besthubbyevar: I guess two more can't hurt!
[i.imgur.com image 500x750]

Who's she?


That's Jordan Carver.
 
2014-02-14 08:41:15 PM  

EdVenture: John Buck 41: Besthubbyevar: I guess two more can't hurt!
[i.imgur.com image 500x750]

Who's she?

That's Jordan Carver.


Thanks.
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report