apparantly the MHRA are still looking into whether or not this product should be allowable in current form. I am told that there may be restrictions placed on advertising it compared to what we have at the moment. However the final decision has not yet been reached.
It’s November; the issue was raised in January; Boots have still got a major advertising campaign going on. I appreciate that the MHRA have to look at the evidence, but that should take a couple of days at most, frankly. Shouldn’t it?
Mmmmh. Boots are being rather naughty playing on or creating fears in woman about breast health.
I wonder if you have seen this: http://www.nvbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18808055
and wonder what your thoughts are about it? Although the abstract concludes that DITI is a valuable adjunct to mammography and ultrasound, perhaps with more research it might become a safe alternative to mammorgaphy?
Anna
Sorry Margaret! I am very skilled in writing inacurate addresses as per above!
Should read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809055
don’t worry….
the breastlight firm is apparantly being liquidated – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-11738271
I can’t quite believe that they got 1.15 million from Scottish Enterprise to fund it, either…..
as for that link,Anna – it may be that using some kind of thermal imaging device has some use or role in the diagnosis of breast lumps – so far the evidence suggests that it is no better than what we have already.
But what Breastlight was doing was NOT marketing it at doctors in breast clinics but women who do not think they have a lump. They were offering it as a screening test. Screening tests are fraught with difficulty and always have downsides. This test had NOT been validated in women who did not think they had breast lumps – a very different situation.