Well said Julie! It is time that Realist stopped poking his nose into other members personal decisions on health care & accepted that, if we want advice , we are all capable of looking things up on the internet!
No Twink, it is not ‘time he stopped’, it is way, way past time. :roll:
Why on earth can’t people just stick to their own beliefs and allow others to do the same?
Look what trouble it causes in religion when one tries to impose their beliefs on others. It is so very wrong IMO.
I had a routine mammogram for the first time this year. I’d had one 11 years ago after I found a lump on self examination. It was checked and found to be a harmless cyst. It’s a relief that nothing has developed. The radiation dose is a fraction of what you’re exposed to when living in Cornwall for a year.
Annie, I am sure there is a blood test (CA-125) for ovarian cancer. I had it done last year when l kept getting pain in my stomach and being bloated. It came back negative but it was later discovered l had impacted gallstones.
Hi
A life without vaccinations, X Rays and Scans.
Would that be wise?
It is not a choice that I would make.
My recent CT scan revealed a potentially life threatening condition which is responding well to treatment.
I am happy I had the scan.
I think we are all glad you had your scan swim. These things do save lives.
Another interesting article here to be considered
[SIZE=“3”]Why Mammography Screening is being Abolished in Switzerland[/SIZE]
http://cyrcadiahealth.com/why-mammography-screening-is-being-abolished-in-switzerland/
"The board spend twelve months reviewing all available evidence and its implications. They reported becoming “increasingly concerned” about the widely believed notion that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives. They said “As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have surrounded mammography screening for the past 10 to 15 years. When we reviewed the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however, we became increasingly concerned.”
In fact they concluded that statistics clearly indicated that mammograms appeared to be preventing only 1 death per 1,000 women screened, and actually caused harm to many more. Their thorough review left them no choice but to recommend that “no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced, and that a time limit should be placed on existing programs.”
2. BENEFITS DID NOT OUTWEIGH THE HARMS
"The panel referred to a recent study published in The Lancet, recognized as one of the largest and longest studies of mammography to date. This study involved 90,000 women who were followed for a period of 25 years. [U]The study concluded that mammograms have absolutely NO impact on breast cancer mortality /U. These conclusions were widely publicized at the time and showed that the death rate from breast cancer was virtually identical between those who received an annual mammogram and those who did not, while 22% of screen-detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, leading to unnecessary treatment."
"The Swiss experts stated: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies. In the best case, the small reduction in breast-cancer deaths was attenuated by deaths from other causes. In the worst case, the reduction was cancelled out by deaths caused by coexisting conditions or by the harms of screening and associated overtreatment. Did the available evidence, taken together, indicate that mammography screening indeed benefits women?”
3. WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF MAMMOGRAPHY BENEFITS ARE NOT MIRRORED IN THE REALITY
"The Swiss panel said “we were disconcerted by the pronounced discrepancy between women’s perceptions of the benefits of mammography screening and the benefits to be expected in reality.”
One survey found that the majority of women believed that mammography screening programs reduced the risk of breast cancer deaths by at least half and prevented at least 80 deaths per 1,000 women screened "
"In conclusion the Swiss said “It is easy to promote mammography screening if the majority of women believe that it prevents or reduces the risk of getting breast cancer and saves many lives through early detection of aggressive tumors.
We would be in favour of mammography screening if these beliefs were valid. Unfortunately, they are not, and we believe that women need to be told so. From an ethical perspective, a public health program that does not clearly produce more benefits than harms is hard to justify. Providing clear, unbiased information, promoting appropriate care, and preventing over diagnosis and overtreatment would be a better choice.”
"We expect our health professionals to know what they’re talking about, and to give the best advice possible. But this research suggests that doctors can be just as confused and misinformed as the patients, compounded by mis-infomation and media propaganda in a powerful and profits driven industry which often chooses to dismiss research that dramatically contradicts their profit-based agenda.
The industry as a whole has a responsibility to no longer ignore mounting research showing that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them."
*** no name calling, please.
Post removed
A rather heart-breaking tale here in this article. A testimony to the power of medical “Campaigns Of Fear” and a stark warning to us all to look at the truth and stop giving in to fear.
[size=3]What If Everything Your Doctors Told You About Breast Cancer Was Wrong?[/size]
"I lost a breast and six months of work, “for stage zero cancer that probably wouldn’t have killed me,”
Art yes they have blood tests for tumour markers etc. but the problem is that by the time ovarian cancer shows itself in symptoms it’s often too late. But the new test has been publicised at picking up changes far earlier so I hope it will be available in the next few years so that we can just have a blood test to screen for several cancers instead of all these invasive and painful procedures.
If years before I got cancer I had been offered double mastectomy just in case I would have had it. It’s sad when people are wrongly diagnosed but many women these days chose these operations so they can avoid losing their lives to cancers.
I know several people who have nearly died from breast cancer. I have known two people who have died from secondary tumours having fought breast cancer. My SiL’s cousin is lucky to be alive, they found the cancer when it had spread to her lymph nodes. A lady we knew also died when she found a lump and didn’t go to the doctor until it was too late, by then her whole breast was rock solid, it was tragic.
Your posts are unhelpful at best but can also put lives in danger.
I found a lump in my breast and went to my doctor, who got me an appointment at the hospital within 2 weeks. They did ultra sound scans and a needle biopsy, which showed it wasn’t breast cancer, it was small cell cancer which is normally found in the lungs and is more aggressive & likely to be terminal.
I was referred to The Christie, a hospital that only deals with cancer and has saved many lives…including mine.
I asked questions to hear about the ups & downs of the treatment and was allowed to decide on how much treatment I would have.
Chemo, & radio therapy killed the tumour within 3 months & my breast is still in tact ( apart from a small scar where they removed the remains of the dead tumour. That was 7 years ago and I am still clear of cancer.
If this woman had a breast removed in error, it is her surgeon that is at fault, so she should sue him!
If I had listened to you , Realist, and believed that all these medical procedures were unnecessary, I would probably be dead now:!:
For heavens sake why do you keep telling us that we are wrong to listen to qualified doctors, based on what you read on the internet, when we are all capable of making our own decisions on our own health, without your input?:roll::roll:
“All these medical procedures” ??
What are you ranting about now ?!
We are talking specifically about Mammograms which categorically, irrefutably have been studied and proven over MANY YEARS to have absolutely ZERO IMPACT on breast cancer mortality.
In your case YOU found a lump in your breast. If you had taken the time to read the article that’s what it is recommending. That people simply stop falling for the Campaign Of Fear and having Mammograms and instead just diligently keep a check on themselves.
Having Mammograms doesn’t prevent any significant number of people from dying of breast cancer so there is zero point having them. Add to that the fact that Mammograms HAVE CONSISTENTLY resulted in countless false positives which HAVE lead 1000s of women down the route of cancer treatments they never ever needed, and there are MASSIVE reasons NOT to have Mammograms.
It really is that simple. This is another multi-billion dollar industry and the FACTS, the true facts about how useless Mammograms are have been known for DECADES.
It is absolutely criminal that the practice has continued all this time and that the medical industry has not properly told the truth to women.
Again, when did I tell you not to listen to your doctor? Like Annie you are making stuff up to suit your agenda.
People need the FULL FACTS in order to make an informed decision. You clearly are not interested in those facts.
That is your prerogative but please cease trying to persecute me for bringing the information to others here. You will not stop me providing useful information however hard you try and it is thoroughly immoral for you to attempt to do so.
This is silly sensationalist nonsense Annie.
Providing information from other sources does not put lives in danger. It helps people make informed decisions.
Hi
Here I am.
I do not have Cancer , I have Malignant Otitis Externa, still sodding dangerous.
I have blast damage to my head, plastic shrapnel, shown up on a CT Scan.
I cannot have an MRI Scan due to the amount of metal in me.
The scan was a life saver, so sod any nonsense about the dangers they may pose.
I am alive and am looking forward to many more years which I would not have had if it was not for the Technology available today.
Have I missed something?
Who asked for help? 
Quoting Swims.
" I am alive and am looking forward to many more years which I would not have had if it was not for the Technology available today.
Swim, well said. 
Quite likely !
Indeed, who asked to know when Julie’s Mammogram appointment was?
Nevertheless, the information was posted, an actual thread started to post it ! Go figure.
From what I’ve read just now, the NHS is well aware that sometimes this type of cancer becomes invasive, other times not. The problem is that they cannot tell 100% which is and which isn’t. Someone came up with a test but it isn’t 100% so there is a risk that some women would be cancerous when they think they are clear. The type of cancer the article discusses will not be felt as a lump and will only be apparent on a mammogram. Every woman has a right to refuse treatment or to ask for less invasive treatment. The lady in the article Realist posted is in Canada, not the UK.
I’m trying to figure out how the lady in your article knew for 100% that this cancer was not invasive. The test for it is not foolproof.