 Various health organizations offer clashing mammogram recommendations that range from annual mammograms starting at age 40 to eliminating routine mammograms altogether. It's hard to know who to trust, given all the various conflicts of interest, but a good place to start is the USPSTF, the US Preventive Services Task Force, whose 2009 recommendations ignited a firestorm of controversy by recommending pushing back routine mammograms from age 40 to 50 and doing them every other year instead of annually. This evoked a swift and decidedly passionate condemnation from members of the public, the media, and medicine. Most people have never even heard of the USPSTF, but it's considered the leading independent panel of non-governmental experts when it comes to prevention. Consider the gold standard for preventive care, as they have a reputation of sticking more with the science, for example, recommending against teaching women to do breast self-exams. Why? Because it doesn't appear to work. It was put to the test, hundreds of thousands of women randomized to do self-exams or not, and no benefit. In fact, only harms, doubling the number of women who had to get biopsies taken, but not actually shown to decrease the risk of getting breast cancer or dying from breast cancer, it didn't catch tumors in earlier stages. Now to be clear, they didn't come out against breast self-examination, but against teaching women how to do them. Reminding them to do them only appears to cause harm with no benefit. If you do discover an abnormality, then definitely tell your doctor. But telling women to get into the practice of looking seems to do more harm than good. But most doctors continue to teach women to perform self-exams. But wait, it's not been shown to help, and in fact it has been shown to harm. So why do doctors keep doing it? Because that's just what we've been telling women forever. So there's this medical inertia that may trump women's health, even without a multi-billion dollar industry pushing for the practice to continue, and without big business tipping the scales. Now consider mammograms. Billions of dollars of revenue every year from sticking with the status quo. Maybe the $7.8 billion spent annually on mammograms might be better spent on something else. Of course one person's cost is another person's income. These billions of extra dollars from the status quo may best explain the organized resistance to the USPSTF panel conclusions. For example, breast radiologists denounced the panel, implying that the panel members were guilty of a callous disregard for the life and well-being of women. All while the American Callative Radiology is receiving millions of dollars of donations from mammogram machine manufacturers. Yeah, but in the case of self-exams, it was put to the test, and the science was clear. It's a no-brainer that harms outweigh the benefits when apparently there are no benefits. And the same appears to be the case with starting mammograms at age 40. It was put to the test to specifically address the population-wide efficacy of mammography screening starting at age 40, and it started out looking like it might help, but ultimately failed, to show any benefit in terms of lowering one's risk of dying from breast cancer. Instead, they just found harms, so-called overdiagnosis, while the chemo-radiation is surged from the detections of what looked like cancer, but may have never caused any problems had they never been picked up. So it may have just resulted in like unnecessary mastectomies. Yet when the USPSCF tried to explain that again in their 2016 recommendations, the firestorm was reignited with full-page ads taken out in major papers asking, which of our mother's wives, daughters, and sisters would be OK to lose? But that misrepresents the science, disrespecting women rather than saving their lives. It's time to douse the flames, clear the smoke, so we can clearly see what the evidence shows. Evidence shm-evidence said Congress, who snuck in some language to interpret any reference to current USPSCF breast cancer screening recommendation to mean those issued before 2009. In other words, it's 2002 recommendations that recommended annual mammograms starting at age 40. Essentially, Congress is requiring health insurers to ignore modern scientific assessments and instead use a 15-year-old guidance. Although many women's health advocates applauded the Congressional mandate, it could be viewed as undermining women's rights to make informed decisions based on the best scientific evidence. The same thing happened 20 years ago, when a National Cancer Institute consensus panel arrived at the same conclusion. But the Senate voted unanimously to ignore them. The number one killer of women is heart disease. Why not focus our billions on more effective interventions? Since healthcare dollars are limited, maybe we could be doing more for women's health. But hey, it could have been worse. The original bill would have denied funding for any future USPSCF mammography recommendations, period. And some members of Congress even proposed to alter the task force composition to include stakeholders from the mammogram machine manufacturers so they can play a more direct role in influencing policy.