| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| twink |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 08:40:46 AM
American Cancer Society admits mammograms and cancer screenings are over-hyped
by E. Huff, staff writer
Originally published November 18, 2009
http://www.naturalnews.com/z027525_mammograms_cancer_screenings.html
Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, recently participated in an interview with the New York Times concerning a Journal of the American Medical Association analysis of breast and prostate cancer screening. The study questioned the legitimacy of such screenings in saving lives, a notion confirmed by Dr. Brawley as legitimate.
Adding that the supposed benefits of screening have been "exaggerated", Dr. Brawley's comments have fueled a firestorm of controversy since they fly in the face of what the organization has been saying and promoting for years.
Cancer screenings essentially have no benefit
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cancer screenings are considered by many to be ineffective in identifying legitimate cancers and in reducing prostate cancer deaths. Eric Larson, a physician serving as executive director of the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, is one such person.
Because there has been no demonstrated benefit to screenings (and they often lead to needless procedures and complications), Mr. Larson continually refuses to receive annual PSA cancer screenings until any alleged benefit can be proven scientifically. Since PSA screenings first began, the number of prostate cancer diagnoses have increased while advanced and late-stage cancers have remained roughly the same.
Breast cancer screenings, primarily in the form of mammography, have a similar track record of failure. The journal report notes that since screenings began, there has been a 40 percent increase in diagnoses and a near doubling of early-stage cancers with only a 10 percent decrease in late-stage cancers that spread throughout the body.
Screenings reveal far more incidences of both breast and prostate cancers but do virtually nothing to curb their promulgation and the outcome that ensues. Researchers note that, if screenings lived up to the promises made about them, late-stage cancers that were formerly incurable because they were found too late would now be discovered earlier when they could be cured. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
Screenings fail to properly identify cancers resulting in unnecessary treatment
While some still see screening as essential and beneficial, despite evidence to the contrary, others recognize the potential dangers of screening.
Dr. Laura Esserman of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Ian Thompson of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, both believe that prostate and breast cancer screenings pose inherent problems that people must be aware of before getting them.
Cancer screenings often identify cancers that should not be identified due to the fact that, if left alone, they would never spread or cause harm. Dormant cancers that will never spread in the body are often pinpointed by screenings and treated as though they are harmful. Detection of these innocuous cancers can be attributed to the tremendous increase in diagnoses over the years.
Screenings are wholly unable to differentiate between innocuous and deadly cancers. Harmless cancers are often identified and aggressively treated. Malignant cancers are often missed or discovered too late, proving the point that screenings are largely useless.
Cancer industry generally refuses to admit a problem exists
What astounds concerned doctors and researchers is the fact that analysis into how to properly differentiate between malignant and benign cancers when screening has never been performed and does not seem to be a priority for the cancer industry. Screenings are pushed despite their inability to properly diagnose with no effort being made to develop useful screening methods.
Objection to "overdiagnosis" using flawed screening methods is considered a major faux pas in mainstream cancer circles. Regardless of documented evidence citing flawed methodology, many in the industry refuse to accept that the existing screening procedure is both flawed and dangerous.
Mammography can actually cause cancer
Aside from unneeded treatments that may result from improper diagnoses, women screened for breast cancer using mammography undergo tremendous exposure to ionizing radiation every time they are screened. Exposure to this radiation is often implicated in causing the very malignant cancers that are meant to be detected. Continual exposure to excessive levels of radiation due to receiving annual mammograms greatly increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.
Mammograms have about a 70 percent failure rate, routinely detecting non-existent tumors. Consequently, many women undergo invasive biopsies needlessly.
Thermography preferable to mammography
Women with a continued interest in breast cancer screening would do well to choose thermography rather than mammography. Thermography utilizes digital infrared imaging, a safe detection method that analyzes body heat levels in and around the breasts. By analyzing blood vessel circulation and metabolic changes that typically accompany the onset of tumorous growths, thermography is arguably the most effective, accurate, and safest breast cancer detection method.
A healthy, cancer-preventative diet is the best way to prevent the onset of malignant cancers. Keeping the body in an alkaline state by feeding it a diet rich in natural foods will safeguard the body from becoming an environment in which cancer can thrive and replicate.
Vitamin D, curcumin, chaparral, garlic, and aloe vera are a few of the many beneficial nutrients that will serve the body well in preventing cancer. Raw brazil nuts, rich in selenium, and saw palmetto are two superb nutrients for maintaining a healthy prostate.
Sources for this story include
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/h...
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/CancerPrev...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Prosta...
http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_c...
http://www.breastthermography.com/
-Deb
http://healthtalk.6.forumer.com/index.php
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars. - Anonymous |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bear5 |
Posted - Nov 23 2009 : 3:56:10 PM
I had my Mammogram this morning, thank you very much. Marly
"It's only when we truly know and understand that we have a limited time on earth- and that we have no way of knowing when our time is up- that we will begin to live each day to the fullest, as if it was the only one we had." Elisabeth Kurler-Ross |
| LakeOntarioFarmgirl |
Posted - Nov 23 2009 : 04:21:45 AM
Here's my opinion! ;)
My dad pretty much pioneered mammography in the area of NY where I grew up in the early to mid 70's. When he graduated from med school, he was hired by a very new teaching hospital who sent him to countless conferences, meetings and short term schooling to learn all about the newest methods for diagnosing breast cancer, and then of course to learn how to use a mammography machine! When I was still in my 30's we talked about when I should get a baseline exam, and it was shortly before I turned 40 that I had my first one.
In the years that my dad practiced radiology he had many women come in for mammograms who already had lumps. (Remember, this was 30 years ago when they used mammography to confirm and measure an already suspected lump) A good number of these women were in their 30's and 40's. That's a big concern right there, but the thing that's the scariest? Breast cancer grows more aggressively in these younger women than it does in older women. Sometimes, by the time these women can actually feel the lump, it is far too late.
It bothers me that my daughters won't have the option of having a mammograms when they feel it is time. They will have to pay for it themselves if they are under 50. I am hoping though by that point the guidelines will be changed back.
There is no history of breast cancer on either side of my family. Not even out to 2nd and 3rd cousins or great aunts. Even so, I've always had them done once a year because I am not good at self exam, will do it if I remember but that's it. He has always told us too to be careful how many x-rays you get in your life, even dental x-rays. He knows first hand all about radiation. I've never had yearly dental x-rays, and now at age 50, I can go every other year to have a mammogram. There may be certain things that we can do to combat the negative effects of radiation also.
Brenda
FarmGirl # 711
If you rest, you rust. Helen Hayes
http://theviewfromhere-brenda.blogspot.com/ |
| CountryBorn |
Posted - Nov 21 2009 : 1:46:51 PM
Good for you Twink! I hope you are not the one who breaks the family tradition. All I know is without mamography some friends of mine wouldn't be here. By the way one is 95 now.She had breast cancer at 78. Her mom lived to be 100. I feel everyone should do what they believe is best for them. There are many, many different opinions on every single thing in medicine from herbs to surgery. You can only make the best informed health choice for yourself you can.
MJ
There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do. Freya Stark |
| twink |
Posted - Nov 21 2009 : 08:19:48 AM
I've never had a mammogram and never intend to. None of the women in my family ever had one either, and none ever will. We simply don't believe that smashing your "self" between two pieces of glass and being bombarded by radiation is the answer to anything.
I know thermography is the best answer and that's what my family will continue to do as long as it's available. The medical industry is doing its best to try to get rid of this safe method of testing, so I would imagine it won't be long before it's a thing of the past. They tend to get their way in these matters.
I come from a long line of women who simply died of old age. The men died of old age too, come to think of it - 90's and a couple of early 100's. Heredity isn't everything, but it has a placebo effect if nothing else!
-Deb
http://healthtalk.6.forumer.com/index.php
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars. - Anonymous |
| Montrose Girl |
Posted - Nov 21 2009 : 05:53:55 AM
I agree that those with a high risk need to be more cautious, but there are a lot of young ladies out there that will go through lots of years of clean health, and I do not think skipping a year in between is a bad thing. I don't go every year, never have. But I know I am fortunate. Cancer does not run in my family. Like with any scientific recommendations, folks need to take it and apply it to their situation. Science is ever changing, that is the truth. And a broad approach cannot be applied across the board. It was on the evening news and the male doctor was complaining about who was going to remind these women that they needed to come in. What? Are we idiots? Sorry, it just hit me wrong.
Deb thanks for sharing. Teresa I'm glad you caught it in time. Elizabeth keep giggling.
Laurie
Best Growing |
| Bear5 |
Posted - Nov 20 2009 : 6:28:27 PM
I had the giggles because I had just taken two tylenol.
Marly
"It's only when we truly know and understand that we have a limited time on earth- and that we have no way of knowing when our time is up- that we will begin to live each day to the fullest, as if it was the only one we had." Elisabeth Kurler-Ross |
| twink |
Posted - Nov 20 2009 : 5:45:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bear5
I have the giggles!
Marly
"It's only when we truly know and understand that we have a limited time on earth- and that we have no way of knowing when our time is up- that we will begin to live each day to the fullest, as if it was the only one we had." Elisabeth Kurler-Ross
Why do you have the giggles??
http://healthtalk.6.forumer.com/index.php
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars. - Anonymous |
| Bear5 |
Posted - Nov 20 2009 : 4:52:49 PM
I have the giggles!
Marly
"It's only when we truly know and understand that we have a limited time on earth- and that we have no way of knowing when our time is up- that we will begin to live each day to the fullest, as if it was the only one we had." Elisabeth Kurler-Ross |
| 1badmamawolf |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 5:26:51 PM
Deb, I am not young, and I didn't read the article with one eye closed, I also would not have any surgery without a 2nd opinion. And if you read what I wrote, I am "high risk", as well are my 2 sisters. When 5 women, who are siblings "ALL" go thru "BREAST CANCER", and thank God survive, I would tend to think, some one is doing something RIGHT.
"Treat the earth well, it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children" |
| twink |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 3:12:28 PM
Thermography is the much preferred method of screening. Mammography exposes women to excess radiation and radiation causes cancer. There are many, many false positives with radiologic mammo's.
I'm not here to argue one way or the other. I just think many people should be looking into a second opinion, but certainly not a second mammogram.
You may be too young, but do you remember those machines that used to be in the shoe stores which took x-rays of your feet? Do you know why those are no longer in the shoe stores?
-Deb
http://healthtalk.6.forumer.com/index.php
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars. - Anonymous |
| 1badmamawolf |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 1:06:34 PM
If it wasn't for early cancer screening I would be minus 2 good friends from breast cancer, one was in her early 30's, and the other was 48. I have been getting mamagrams since I was 35, my mom and 4 of her sisters had breast cancer, all of these women are alive today. For anyone to say, its a waste of time and money to be safe, thats just wrong.
"Treat the earth well, it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children" |
|
|
