Yawn!
Well I won’t argue about it but if I hadn’t had one a few years ago I seriously wouldn’t be here now the tumour was too deep to feel from the outside so only way they could find it was with the mammogram. Over the years I’ve had other scans and xrays I guess as they warn you they can all damage you too but for me the investigations have been more important than worrying about the harm it does.
I think we are all grown ups can make our own decisions on the risks we want to take, I never have cervical smears for me that was a step too far in the pain stakes and after they made a mistake with results I just thought I’ll take my chances and stop, but I know people who have had their lives saved by that too so it’s just a choice we have to make.
I just thought I’d start the thread to remind people they can save a life.
I agree, but I wish people would begin to accept that although ionising radiation does, theoretically, have the potential of damaging tissue, I am yet to see any reports of this actually happening in practice.
When was the last time anyone’s hands turned black and dropped off as a consequence of radiation burns? 1910?
well said :-D:-D
Indeed I think protecting unborn babies is sensible but the rest of us are fine with them.
Ok . . .
Oh, you are going to argue about it . . . !
Errr no, not really. You could have opted for Thermography which offers the following benefits:
• It does not involve exposure to radiation, and so it can be used safely over time.
• It can detect vascular changes in breast tissue associated with breast cancer many years in advance of other methods of screening.
• It can be used for all women, including those with dense breast tissue and breast implants.
• Hormonal changes do not affect results.
So in fact Thermography might have detected your tumour years before the Mammograms did.
I agree, but crucially I realise and accept that none of us can make an informed decision until and unless we have been given and have digested all of the available facts. It is very easy to get mislead and caught in the trap of medical brainwashing and to just go along with the status quo instead of doing the research. Your suggestion that Mammography is the only option is an example of such a mislead.
The available data shows that Mammograms have done, and continue to do, more harm than good because they are thoroughly unreliable and have sent many women down the conveyor belt path of cancer treatments when there was never any need for it. The emotional rhetoric of “well it’s better to be safe than sorry” is medical brainwashing. In the case of Mammograms, it isn’t better at all. It is better not to have them and to opt for a different technology. That’s why countries, yes entire countries, are now ceasing the use of Mammography. That would not be happening if Mammograms were a good thing.
But we aren’t offered thermotherapy as standard realist we have to work with what we are given if we use the NHS. I can’t imagine trying to stop women having a mammogram will make NHS suddenly change tack, what you need to do is make this thermotherapy available to us then we can choose. Until then we have to do what we can.
No-one forces you to follow the NHS or for that matter “conventional” Big Pharma medicines and treatments. It’s your life. You have a choice.
Thermography exists. Go find it.
The NHS WILL change tack, I guarantee it, but they lag behind other countries. Mammography will eventually fall into the same oubliette as things like Thalidomide, as will mercury amalgam fillings . . . in time. It will happen once people can’t effectively sue the NHS for damages.
I didn’t say it didn’t exist, I just don’t think it’s offered freely on the NHS you can say go find it but if it isn’t offered by the NHS I certainly can’t afford to go privately.
As for suing NHS I am totally against that all that does is make less available for other peoples treatments.
The last mammogram that I had was two years ago when I was seventy-five. They informed me that day that they’d no longer be getting in touched with me through the mail. However, they also told me, that if I noticed a change or had any other issues…to call and make an appointment for another mammogram.
If I have a need to do so, which I haven’t, touch wood…it will still be covered under the Ontario Health Insurance Programme…which is definitely good to know…
Yes, a blood test would be much better than us exposing ourselves to radiation. This would be a breakthrough
Mercury amalgam fillings have been banned by the EU for children and pregnant women. Most British dentists no longer use it.
But I think banning it is a load of nonsense. It’s a very good material and far better than the alternatives. Lasts forever and doesn’t cause decay. Millions of perfectly healthy people have had mercury fillings for years. It’s actually more dangerous replacing them.
They will probably find out that most cancers are caused by ordinary household products. It will be something you never think about such as air freshener or toothpaste. We are surrounded by chemicals and low level radiation. We have wireless tech everywhere going through our bodies. You get on a plane and the longer you are in the air the more radiation exposure there is. Apparently we could never live on Mars because it doesn’t protect against the sun’s radiation in the way Earth’s atmosphere does.
Risks are unavoidable if are alive on this planet. At least we have some form of detection and cure for cancer. It’s not perfect but it’s better than just putting half an onion in your sock and hoping for the best.
Let’s remember that the dose received from having a chest X-ray, is less than that from cosmic gamma rays when you take a transatlantic flight.
Nobody seems to worry about taking long-haul flights.
“A 14-hour trip from New York to Tokyo produces about 0.1 millisieverts, less than a quarter of the radiation needed for a mammogram.”
“Even one X-ray, by itself, has the potential to cause a cancer,”
“The average passenger is exposed to about 0.01 millisieverts per year.”
On average the total dose for a typical mammogram with 2 views of each breast is about 0.4 millisieverts.
Radiation damage is cumulative. Mammograms squash breast cells flat which maximises the area that is being irradiated. If Mammograms were the least bit reliable this risk might be worth taking, but unfotunately they are not reliable and have been proven to do more harm than good.
A list of radiation doses for various procedures or activities. Living in Cornwall exposes people to more radiation annually than a CT scan of the spine.
My apologies!
I had said before that I have no intention to continue this long-term debate, yet I posted my opinion again.
I think we should agree to disagree on this particular topic.
The facts won’t change whether we agree or disagree. They are what they are.
Good article here in the NCBI, goes back to 2011 !
Time to stop mammography screening?
“These guidelines are an important step in the right direction, away from the prevailing attitude that a woman who does not undergo screening is irresponsible. Recent research even suggests that it may be most wise to avoid screening altogether, at any age, as outlined below.”
“If screening does not reduce the occurrence of advanced cancers, it does not work. A systematic review of studies from seven countries showed that, on average, the rate of malignant tumours larger than 20 millimetres was not affected by screening.2 Because the size of a tumour is linearly correlated to the risk of metastasis,4 this result is evidence against an effect of screening.”
“It has often been claimed that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 30%.9 However, thorough systematic reviews have estimated only a 15% reduction,2,3 and data on tumour size from the trials are compatible with only a 12% effect.4 This effect is similar to the results seen in the most reliable studies, which showed a 10% effect after 13 years.”
"Any possible effect of screening on breast cancer mortality must be marginal and could be counteracted by the life-shortening effect that radio-therapy and chemotherapy have when used in healthy women in whom breast cancer has been overdiagnosed (i.e., a diagnosis of breast cancer that would not have been made in the woman’s remaining life had she not undergone screening).3 The main effect of screening is to produce patients with breast cancer from among healthy women who would have remained free of breast disease for the rest of their lives had they not undergone screening. Compelling data from the US, Norway and Sweden show that most overdiagnosed tumours would have regressed spontaneously without treatment.2,10 In addition, screening substantially increases the number of mastectomies performed,2,3 despite routine claims to the contrary by advocates of screening.2"
[B][SIZE=“2”]"The best method we have to reduce the risk of breast cancer is to stop the screening program. This could reduce the risk by one-third in the screened age group, as the level of overdiagnosis in countries with organized screening programs is about 50%.11
If screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market. Thus, which country will be first to stop mammography screening?"[/SIZE][/B]
Yes and you would condemn a lot of us to death no one makes anyone have one. You make that choice personally I chose to do so