Doctors conclude mammograms offer no health
benefits, whatsoever.
The
Lancet
Mammography's so-called low-dose radiation
may increase the risk of breast cancer.
International
Journal of Cancer
Excluding cancers
of the skin, breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women in the
United States, accounting for 1 of every 3 cancers diagnosed. A woman's chance
of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in her life is approximately
1 in 8 (12%). It is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality among women
in the United States.
Because of early
detection, intervention, and postoperative treatment, breast cancer mortality
has been decreasing. For more than 30-years women in the US and their
doctors have been conditioned to accept annual mammography screenings as a
woman's best option for early detection of breast cancer. Until recently, the official science viewpoint was
quite clear: the use of mammography for screening has been largely contributed
to early cancer detection. However, modern studies question this statement
validity.
Official USPSTF
Recommendations
In November 2009,
the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their recommendations
for routine mammography screening for woman aged 40-49 years. The USPSTF
examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing
mortality from breast cancer:
- Film mammography
- Clinical breast examination
- Breast self-examination
- Digital mammography
- Magnetic resonance imaging
The USPSTF
recommendations include the following:
- The USPSTF recommends against routine
screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start
regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should
be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the
patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms.
- The USPSTF recommends biennial
screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years.
- The USPSTF concludes that the current
evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of
screening mammography in women 75 years or older.
- The USPSTF concludes that the current
evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of
clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years
or older.
- The USPSTF recommends against
clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination.
- The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
Screening Mammography
Mammography is the process of using X-rays to examine the
human breast for different types of tumors and cysts. Like all X-rays,
mammography uses ionizing radiation to create a film or digital image. The
special wavelength of the X-rays enables mammography to create images of the
internal structures of the breasts. As they pass through the breast the X-rays
are partially absorbed by the different tissue densities they encounter. Dense
tissue (fat) absorbs much of the X-radiation. Connective tissue is less dense
and absorbs less of the X-ray energy. These absorption differences for
different tissue types generate the images. Radiologists analyze the images for
abnormal growths.
A Diagnostic Mammogram is an X-ray examination of the
breast of a woman who exhibits signs of possible cancer, e.g., a palpable mass
(lump), discharge, positive breast thermography evaluation, etc. Abnormalities
such as cancerous tumors, tissue masses, cysts, and tiny calcium deposits
(microcalcifications) are usually visible. Diagnostic mammography is a valuable
tool for locating suspected cancerous tissue, so that a biopsy may be
performed.
A Screening Mammogram is an x-ray examination of the
breast(s) of a woman without overt symptoms of breast cancer. The goal of the
mammography screening is to discover cancer before it is felt by the woman or
her doctor as a lump. The premise that screening mammography is a useful tool
for the early detection of breast cancer makes no sense. Breast cancer takes
years to develop, and a tumor that's big enough to be visible on a mammogram
has been growing for years. It probably has already spread to other organs, and
the 5-year survival rate at this point is only 26%. When mammography was first
embraced by the medical community as a screening tool for breast cancer, its
use was predicted to improve mortality by 25% - 30%. Unfortunately it has
miserably failed to meet these expectations.
A 2000 study of 600,000 women aged 50 to 70 screened using
mammography every two years showed the reduction in breast cancer death rate
was only 1%. This discouraging result evidences that mammography screenings
discover tumors when they are in the advanced stages of development, probably
eight-years old, or older, and have likely spread beyond the breast. Screening
mammography can also detect the presence of a tumor through inference by
identifying clusters of microcalcifications, specks of calcium found in
the area of a growing tumor. About half the cancers detected appear as clusters
of these microcalcifications. Sadly, by the time the clusters are big enough to
be considered serious, the cancer may have spread beyond the breast.
False Positives
A new groundbreaking study published in the New England
Journal of Medicine (NEJM) claims that 93% of "early detection" due
to the mammography has no benefit to the patients. Study co-author Dr.
Gilbert Welch reports: "We found that the introduction of screening has
been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis
of early stage breast cancer”.
As Dr. Welch's team discovered, there was virtually no
reduction in late-stage breast cancer from all this "early"
diagnosis, meaning that most women who were told they had breast cancer
after a mammogram were being mislead. As he explains:
We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of over-diagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which women these are, that's some pretty serious harm.
We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of over-diagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which women these are, that's some pretty serious harm.
Who Benefits from Chemo, Radiation, and Cancer Surgeries?
According to these scientists, more than 1.3 million women
who were told by their oncologists: "If you don't agree to treatment,
you'll be dead in six months", were totally healthy. Under the threat of
this fear, most women cave in and agree to start "treatment" -- often
on the very same day they are falsely diagnosed. This so-called
"treatment" consists of a highly toxic injection of deadly chemicals
that the oncologist makes a small fortune selling to the very same patients he
falsely diagnosed. Yes, that is sad truth. Cancer clinics and oncology
treatment centers make huge profits on
the chemotherapy drugs they sell to patients -- the very same patients
they scared into treatment through a false positive mammogram.
Despite the near-total failure of mammography from a scientific point of view, the propaganda push for mammography is steady and growing. As Dr. Welch explains in his New York Times article: “...No other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms -- efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion ("I can't be your doctor if you don't get one"). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will [statistically] skyrocket”.
By the way, did you know that Komen for the Cure is funded by mammography companies (DuPont, Monsanto and GE) and some drug companies? Go to the website and just take a look at who their sponsors are you may change who you are doing business with. Huge amounts of money is raised through Run For the Cure races that are in turn used for free mammography screenings that in turn bring in more money to be made in the form of over diagnosis and the mammography machines themselves cause breast cancer by the large amount of ionizing radiation it produces during the scan.
Despite the near-total failure of mammography from a scientific point of view, the propaganda push for mammography is steady and growing. As Dr. Welch explains in his New York Times article: “...No other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms -- efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion ("I can't be your doctor if you don't get one"). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will [statistically] skyrocket”.
By the way, did you know that Komen for the Cure is funded by mammography companies (DuPont, Monsanto and GE) and some drug companies? Go to the website and just take a look at who their sponsors are you may change who you are doing business with. Huge amounts of money is raised through Run For the Cure races that are in turn used for free mammography screenings that in turn bring in more money to be made in the form of over diagnosis and the mammography machines themselves cause breast cancer by the large amount of ionizing radiation it produces during the scan.
Good and Bad
The statistical data is quite clear: The risk of dying
from breast cancer by receiving a mammogram is only .07%, that’s seven out of
10,000 women. Not that these seven women out of 10,000 are not important,
but it’s not compelling proof that mammography is useful, since Mammography
companies are plainly ignoring the damage done by screening.
- Between 20-50% of women tested over a decade of their life will have at least one false biopsy.
- Screening results in over diagnosis. For every life saved 2 to 10 women are over diagnosed.
- Women who are over diagnosed cannot benefit from chemo, radiation or surgery. All they experience is concluded in health damaging, unnecessary toxic poisoning from chemotherapy. Yes, chemotherapy causes, heart, lung, liver, and kidney damage.
- Mammograms cause harm to 10 women for every 1 they help.
Radiation Risks Using Mammography
The X-rays used for mammography are longer wavelength than
the X-rays used for other examinations, e.g., chest X-rays. Mammography's special
X-rays are absorbed by tissue much more readily than traditional X-rays. The
more radiation that's absorbed, the more potential there is for tissue damage.
The "Mammogram Industry" promotes the procedure as low-dosage
mammography, but the reality is that mammography's special X-rays are the
equivalent of 1000 standard X-rays.
According to one former director of The National Cancer
Institute (NCI), in women between the ages of 35 and 50, each exposure to
today's "low-dosage" X-radiation from mammography increased
the risk of breast cancer by 1%. Other experts claim 2%. So, the 40-year old
woman who has a mammogram each year for ten years increases her risk of
developing breast cancer by 10% to 20%. The risk of radiation is apparently
higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under
35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it
identifies. A Canadian study found a 52% increase in breast cancer mortality in
young women given annual mammograms.
Since mammography screening was introduced in the early
1970's, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ, a form of breast cancer, has
increased by 328%. Of this increase 200% is alleged to be due to mammography
screenings. Cancer research has also found that a high percentage of women in
the United States have a gene, oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even
small doses of radiation. Researchers estimate that 10,000 of these gene
carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to the radiation from
screening mammography.
Summary
The conclusion from
the study authors is simple and straightforward: “Despite substantial
increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected,
screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women
present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been
affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial over-diagnosis,
accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small
effect on the rate of death from breast cancer”.
Sources and Additional Information:
No comments:
Post a Comment