My mammogram appointment

Health & Diet Health & Diet: Chat / Discussions
61

Yep. And your point is what?

Does Mammography magically work in the UK but not in any other countries !!

Notable that you didn’t mention the awful statistics involved:

"a 2012 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine calculated that over the last 30 years, mammograms have over-diagnosed 1.3 million women in the United States. Millions more women have experienced the anxiety and emotional turmoil of a second battery of tests to investigate what turned out to be a false alarm. Most of the 1.3 million women who were over-diagnosed received some kind of treatment—surgical procedures ranging from lumpectomies to double mastectomies, often with radiation and chemotherapy or hormonal therapy, too—for cancers never destined to bother them. "

“breast surgeon Michael Baum estimated that for every breast cancer death thwarted by mammography, we can expect an additional one to three deaths from causes, like lung cancer and heart attacks, linked to treatments that women endured.”

The numbers pertaining to mortality are astonishing and it beggars belief how and why Mammography is still in use, except that we know it’s all for mega bucks for Big Pharma.

For every 10,000 women screened:

6,130 will be called back for more tests that will ultimately be deemed to not be cancer

302 will be diagnosed with cancer

Of those 302:

173 will survive the cancer regardless of any screening

62 will die of breast cancer regardless of the screening

57 will be diagnosed with a cancer that would never have hurt them

10 will avoid dying of breast cancer

These are starling numbers. Truly awful numbers. It’s astounding that such a widespread medical practice could have been authorised based on such a huge failure rate. As many articles have stated, if this had been a drug it would never have been allowed to be sold.

Mammography IS HARMING more people than it is saving from breast cancer. Irrefutably.

The extent of the harm could be enormous. The people falsely diagnosed as having cancers or those having found something that would never have become an issue but resulted in them having treatments and surgery are likely very significant.

This is why Mammography has been stopped in Switzerland and other countries. It simply is another fraudulent scam.
It has been known for DECADES that it does not prevent breast cancer deaths to any meaningful extent and that it actually harms far more people than it saves.

How is it then that it has persisted for so long?!

Truly shocking

62

Presumably it was easy to properly identify after they’d lopped her breast off !

It’s a shocking story.

63

Hi

My point is very simple.

Do I risk a CT Scan or not.

I did, took the decision the Radiation from the scan was worth it.

No Scan and I would be dead by next Easter.

I am not going to be dead anytime soon.

I will be here to annoy you for some time to come.

64

You appear to be focussing in on CT Scans Swim, and radiation. Not sure why. The discussion is mostly about Mammograms and their awful performance in preventing breast cancer deaths.

Glad you are still here to post nevertheless.

65

I cannot see how it could have been easily identifiable from a biopsy. They would have found cancer cells. DCIS are cells that have turned cancerous. They would not know that it cannot spread because although there is a test for this it is not 100% confident.

We don’t know enough about this patient’s case but here is a link from Cancer Research Uk which gives more information on this type of cancer cell :

66

Probably because you said that mammography exposes the woman to high levels of radiation that could cause cancer.

67

Yep it does

“Low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening may increase breast cancer risk in women with genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer, according to a study presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).”

https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/news/target.cfm?id=401

"Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, said, "Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth.”

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/15/mammograms-much-less-useful-than-previously-believed.aspx

68

I have highlighted the relevant part. Are you saying that women with a family history of breast cancer should not have mammographies?

In any event most CT scans have a higher radiation content. Swim was talking about CT scans.

69

Mammograms do not distinguish between women with a history of breast cancer and those without. They are simply dumb machines.

The facts, irrefutable facts have shown that Mammograms do not reduce the rates of death due to breast cancer. The facts show clearly that they do more harm to women than good.

On that basis why should anyone be having a Mammogram?

Why are Mammograms still being offered at all?

It is a fraudulent practice whose time is almost up.

Mammography will soon be consigned to the dustbin of medical practices along with leeching and mercury amalgam fillings.

And just to be complete on this, those with a genetic history of breast cancer should get tested but should opt for a testing procedure that is actually proven to work. That then does not include Mammography.

70

Realist perhaps you could explain how a doctor can tell the difference between DCIS cells that will turn into an invasive cancer and ones that won’t. Let’s be clear that both are cancer cells.

71

Sorry? Do you think that when a woman is sent a mammography appointment the doctor and medics don’t know she has a family history? Do you think that if she has a family history then she should not have a mammography because there is a risk she could contract cancer? Do you understand anything about breast cancer and the fact that it runs in families?

You posted a link about the risk to women who have a family history of breast cancer. Perhaps you could answer properly questions about your post? Because from your response you are avoiding the question.

72

Nothing you have said there changes one iota the facts about the useless efficacy of Mammography so I don’t see the point you are trying to make.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE what history a person has, the process of Mammography remains utterly useless for purpose. It fails spectacularly to achieve that which it purports to do, which is to reduce mortality.

Again I will stress, no-one should have a Mammograph regardless of family history or anything else, because Mammography is not suitable for purpose. It is not able to provide a reliable result and sees 1000s of women falsely diagnosed and given treatments that they don’t need.

It does more harm than good.

Which part of this are you not understanding?

73

Realist we are discussing your post number 67 where you quoted “Low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening may increase breast cancer risk in women with genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer, according to a study presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).”. You are distancing yourself from this statement.

So do you think women with a family history of breast cancer should not have a mammogram? You appear to be saying that in your post above? I am just checking that is what you really mean.

Can you just state that again. That you think women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer should avoid mammograms.

NB you didn’t address my post about DCIS and the fact that doctors can’t tell whether these cells will go on to cause cancer. So no woman with DCIS (which are cancer cells) should be treated in your opinion?

74

Ok this is all getting silly, realist doesn’t think mammograms keep women alive and save lives. But he’s wrong there is one sitting here today who would have died 10 years ago if I hadn’t had one. It was shear luck I did as I was working for a company offered us all one for free, I thought go along with everyone else it was half an hour off work and free after all. Could have knocked me down with a feather when the results came through and five days later I was in hospital !

Without it I had no idea what was in my chest, I would have been at least a year later finding it by the time I did it could easily have been too late. As it was I had a bit of rib removed. Left another year I could have been riddled with it.

My aunt didn’t go for hers when it was offered because her husband like realist didn’t think the risk was worth it, took her three agonising years to die, two of them she was bed bound.

Give me the radiation over that sort of death any day.

75

Julia, they’re free anyway. You don’t have to pay for mammos!

76

It’s possible that Julie didn’t qualify for an NHS mammogram ten years ago. They were given to women over 50. That changed recently and I received an appointment aged 47 I think. But when I had my lump I was 40 and was only referred because I had found one. If you didn’t have a lump you wouldn’t be seen.

77

Yes that’s it Annie I was too young to be at risk, by about five years I think at the time. Another cancer my cousin was told he was too young for and not to worry but took his life only a year later was prostate cancer, he was only 25 and no one would listen to him because he was too young to worry about things like that. :cry:

78

It’s not a statement. It is a quote. With a link provided to the source. In what way am I distancing myself from it? I don’t understand your point.

You’ve already asked that question and I have already answered it, extremely clearly in post #67. Why are you asking again? For effect?

I’ve stated it in post #67 very clearly.

Women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer should get screened, no question as should any other women of later years. The type of screening chosen imho should be one that actually works and is proven to work and which does not provide stupid numbers of false positives that would result in a woman going for treatment of cancer when it is not needed. Since Mammography DOES NOT work reliably and since Mammography DOES result in stupid numbers of false positives then common sense dictates for me that Mammography would not an appropriate option for screening. You surely want to have screening that is reliable. Hence an alternative screening method is surely the way to go such as Thermography which detects certain masses years earlier than Mammograms can.

Yep. DCIS is a huge topic Annie as I’m sure you know.
There is huge debate in the medical and scientific world about it and how it is classified. Many suggest that it shouldn’t be deemed a cancer at all and that it is misleading to do so. DCIS is a non-invasive condition. There’s about a 1% chance of it turning into invasive cancer maybe less, but the “fear factor” that is instilled when a women is told she has DCIS naturally causes great anxiety. Unfortunately it would seem that the medical industry isn’t coming clean about DCIS. Some practitioners tell their patients that it is a “ticking time bomb” just waiting to go off.

Other areas of the industry freely admit that they are MASSIVELY over-treating DCIS, giving women all manner of surgery and treatments ranging from lumpectomies to mastectomies and radiation.

It is clearly a problem but once again it is impossible to ignore the same age old Modus Operandi here, a “Campaign Of Fear” which drives people to accept treatments when really, they don’t need them.

It is also a fact that DCIS was never really an issue until the advent of Mammographs which started making people aware of them. Before then people went about their lives quite happily not knowing they had a completely non-invasive tiny mass in their breasts which in the VAST MAJORITY of cases was never going to cause any issues, many of which would regress and disappear of their own accord.

So now we have a situation where routine Mammographs, which are wholly unreliable and do more harm than good, are actually making women aware of these tiny non-invasive masses and thereby instilling huge fear and anxiety.

What can these poor women do when informed of their DCIS?
Live a life of worry because the medical industry preys on that fear? Or rush into surgery for lumpectomies and mastectomies. They are placed in an untenable position which nicely feeds the profits of the medical industry.

It is a cruel cruel situation in the extreme.

The DCIS debate is long standing and extensive and takes this thread off topic. I’m happy to explore the subject but we should begin a new separate thread for it. This thread is specifically about Mammograms.

79

Hi Julie. You have my sympathy for having gone through your ordeal and it’s clearly an emotive subject for you which is why I think it clouds your objectivity.

There’s no denying that SOME people survive breast cancer via the various treatments but you need to look at and accept the statistics from the studies.

MORE people are harmed by Mammography than are helped.

Just think that through for a second.

What it essentially means is that you participated in a system that hurts people but you were fortunate to be the lucky one.

Think of it this way. Let’s say a group of terrorists routinely sieze 10 people off the streets every week. Of those 3 are shot, 4 are burned alive, 2 manage to escape by their own efforts and 1 the terrorists allow to go free.

In this situation you are the one that was allowed to go free and you are crowing about that situation.

In reality, whilst you were the lucky one in this Mammography situation, a load of other women were not so lucky. Some of them had lumpectomies unnecessarily, some had mastectomies unnecessarily, some had chemotherapy unnecessarily and most had a range of nasty drugs. Of those people a number will have died as a result of those treatments and the fact that they greatly increased their chance of getting other cancers. On top of that, many more 100s of women suffered terrible stress and anxiety through being told about breast lumps that were falsely diagnosed but which luckily did not end up going down the treatment route.

The data is very clear Julie. Mammograms are very harmful to women. They do more harm than good. Irrefutably.

It is very unkind for you to crow about your luck when the truth is that many others were not so lucky.

80

So I need to be more rational and leave my family without me to save other women who may be harmed by radiation. No they need to make their own minds up as I did what is riskier for them to do not abandon people like me to die early.