Women kept in the dark about the facts about mammography
Posted on 20 February 2009
Mammography is a widely advocated and popular intervention designed to pick up breast cancers earlier than they would otherwise be, and therefore allow less invasive and more effective treatment. However, as I pointed out in a blog back in 2007, some researchers believe that the benefits of mammography are somewhat overblown, and that the potential downsides are at the same time downplayed or not mentioned at all. A major problem with mammography is that it may detect cancers that would not go on to trouble women during their lifespan. This can obviously subject women to unnecessary stress and anxiety, not to mention unnecessary treatment in the form of, say, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
The debate about the relative benefits and harms of mammography has reared up again in the UK because of the publication of a letter in the Times newpaper which can you read here. In it, 23 interested parties cite evidence that is published by the researcher Peter G
Published February 20, 2009 . Filed under: Food and Medical Politics, Women's Health
After my last routine mammography I was recalled because they noticed something. The recall was a week later but it was one of the worst weeks of my life thinking I must have breast cancer. The ‘something’ they saw turned out to be simply overlapping breast tissue, so radiographer error in a sense. I’m not sure I will ever have a mammogram again.
Neither will I have a smear test – after having them since my early twenties every three years I’ve had enough ! I don’t know if that’s sensible but I understand there is controversy about smear tests too.
Anne
February 20, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
I have always maintained this, and would never dream of subjecting myself to testing involving radiation (to avoid cancer?? huh?), especially if I had no intention of pursuing the treatment ‘options’ offered.
The same sort of thing applies as regards testing to cervical smear tests – pace what is happening to Jade Goody. I suffered a false positive 36 years ago, and had dire warnings issued about needing to submit to treatment, without any re-testing being offered to check that the result was valid. I should have been dead by now – am not! Another test confirmed what I knew at the time, but was hotly denied, that my results had been mixed up with someone else’s.
Incidentally, I have just been sent something issuing – allegedly – from Johns Hopkins University that talks in terms of small numbers of cancer cells appearing routinely and being dealt with by the immune system, unless that is otherwise compromised. I think the same sort of thing was discovered many years ago in Vitamin C-related research by Cameron (?).
The Johns Hopkins piece also talks about the potential damage done by unnecessary treatment, and indeed cancer treatment generally, summarised by someone I know as ‘slash, poison and burn’.
February 20, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Thanks Dr B., excellent point. The ‘facts’ obviously need updating to provide accurate and truthful information
February 20, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Thanks for bringing this up; it’s a subject that has been on my mind for several years. I had a benign lump removed when I was in my twenties (back when I consumed more sugar and vegetable oil, too), so I’ve been very vigilant about breast cancer detection issues. I’ve always had dense breasts (common to younger women), which mammography doesn’t image well. I sometimes get lumpy areas that come and go in the various stages of my hormones cycles, especially now that I’m in mid-late 40s (perimenopausal). The last two mammographies were very painful, too. It’s my understanding that it’s been known since the 1920s that some breast cancer cells are very delicate, and spread when handled roughly – yet mammographies require significant pressure and squeezing. What’s up with that? Could mammographies actually contribute to some types of cancers spreading?
So I looked into thermography, which makes an image of heat radiation from the body. No contact with the imaging machine required, no squeezing. Thermal images can detect areas of increased vascularization (cancer cells create neovascularization to spport their growth) and inflammation (FYI, thermography can also image other parts of the body to find pain and inflammation, which is helpful for “referred pain” that is felt in one area but is generated in another).
Granted, one of the criticisms of thermography is that it can detect “potential” areas for cancer growth before there is enough cancer to even treat (with current surgical protocol and anti-cancer treatments). There are some who theorize thermography can detect potential cancer sites when merely changing lifestyle or diet could reverse the development (lowwere stress, lower sugar, lowwer intake of inflammatory foods, like high omega-6 vegetable oils).
Is such early stage detection, that might not even require medical intervention, any reason to instead use technology that detects cancers at more advanced stages and causes discomfort and repeated exposure to radiation? Isn’t “prevention” and “early detection” the better game plan? Or is promotion of mammography technology by big manufacturers like GE part of the equation?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they keep running through my mind every year when I get the postcard from my insurance company reminding me to schedule my mammogram. This year I skipped it and opted for thermography instead (it’s recommended a repeat image is taken again in three months when first establishing a thermography baseline image). I’ll probably do the same next year. Maybe I’ll do a mammography every 5 years, with thermography in between. But I will keep asking questions and learning more. It’s veyr clear to me the picture on mammography is murky, at best.
February 21, 2009 @ 1:49 am
I remain skeptical about any radiation-based technology being used to ‘detect’ cancer. I suspect if you get enough mammograms you may GET cancer. Not to mention the mauling of the breast that goes on which wouldn’t be good for it either.
But you know, nobody is ever going to research this, because all the money is in the corporations with the mammogram machines and the various “treatment options” for positive results found with it. This research mostly on ‘false positives’ is probably the best we can hope for, especially since there’s no way to use human trials to see if multiple mammograms eventually over many people have a detrimental health effect.
I personally think breasts (and prostrate) get cancer mostly because lymph nodes get clogged and eventually the clog (being biochemical and toxic in nature) starts to rot and turn cancerous. This is possible to avoid I suspect, by avoiding chronic- internal allergen-foods (such as wheat and soft dairy), drinking plenty of water (not chemical soda), and gently massaging the lymph system regularly to help it flush out and move through toxins. You know when it’s getting sluggish in there because it’ll hurt like a bruise when you press on the major lymph areas. The worse it hurts the more you need to massage it and drink water.
The majority of my family in every generation has died from cancer. I attribute my lack of it so far (43) to being aware of these factors. Eating less processed carbs and wheat and sufficient protein and fat has certainly improved my health too though (of course).
PJ
February 21, 2009 @ 6:09 am
There are some blood tests that can detest markers for breast cancer. Does anybody know about this form of testing? How accurat can it be , is it possible to do this test in UK and if yes, where?
February 21, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
I have never had a mammaogram, and never dare to mention it either at work or amongst friends, as I am immediately pinned down, cross-questioned, pitied, looked askance-at, and almost treated as doomed. However, I am the only one who has ever read anything like the above; when I tell others about it they just disbelieve it in preference to the hand-outs.
February 23, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
PJ, I’m glad to hear you are so healthy against all the genetic odds. And I think you’re right
February 24, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I am heartened by the number of comments on this which support my own views on screening. In a group of twelve women with whom I used to work five of them have had breast cancer. I am fairly sure that they all had regular mammograms, but only one case was identified by this, the other four found a lump themselves. However, four other women in the group have experienced “false positives” and spent several weeks in states of intense anxiety as a consequence. I know of similar instances relating to cervical cancer screening. Many years ago I was part of a geographical group (Canterbury) where it was revealed that mistakes were made over a period of several years in the slide examination of cervical smears, and was informed some three years after the screening that mine was to be routinely re-examined. The anxiety this caused was so great that I decided that I would never allow myself to be subjected to this in the future.
I have asked them to stop badgering me about attending for screening, and told them that I do not wish to use the “service”, but I have had what can only be described as bordering on “threatening letters” from my local health trust trying to scare me into attending for screening. As soon as I receive such a letter now I shred it, immediately, un-read.
February 26, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
it seems that the best predictor of cancer is how afraid of it you are. constant testing for something will eventually reap the rewards of seeing what you are testing for, it is as simple as mind over matter! i have to agree with the few here who have never had nor never intend to have screenings. it never ceases to amaze me how people spend their lives in fear just because someone who went to medical school says they should. could the whole we make a fortune off you fearful people be the real reason? the cancer industry is a multi billion dollar concern. lets see who are the real winners here??
March 2, 2009 @ 1:25 am
I’m due to be summoned any day now to have another mammogram – but I won’t be going. The older I get the more reactionary I become. I’ve put myself on a high meat and high fat diet and am trying to wean myself off anything in excess of 70gm per day carbohydrates and sugars because the so-called ‘healthy’ diet was really not working for me. I’ve stopped using fluoridated toothpaste and even filter my water so that the artificial fluoride in it is removed (Reverse Osmosis). I am not on any medication and will run a mile if any GP dares to prescribe statins in order to reduce my high cholesterol level – a level which I am carefully and lovingly nurturing since cholesterol is vital for continued efficient brain function.
Look out everyone – BIG PHARM is out there trying to catch you in a weak moment so that you consume more artificial, unnecessary medicines to swell the coffers for their share-holders.
March 12, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
I recently had my first mammogram after a year of putting it off. I told myself “baseline” for the future. The reason I found this blog is because I’m looking for information on how to cope with the procedure afterward. I believe the technician was as professional as she could be, but the fact I feel so personally violated with the manipulation and the procedure itself is indescribable. Other women (friends) don’t talk about this until you call them reduced to sobs, and even then they have no words to offer except “time will help it pass.” I’d like to see some after-affect research on the indignation women may feel with this procedure. I have a counseling appointment in the morning so I don’t have to miss anymore work due to uncontrolled outbursts of crying, followed by putting on another layer of clothing. I’ve also read a lot today about the thermography technique and will definitely counter any further talk of screenings with this technology. I’m joining the ranks of those not getting another mammogram.
March 17, 2009 @ 6:59 am
after being hounded by my doc to get a mammo-i gave in.this being my 2nd ever at age 49.i was feeling fine until then-they found suspicious-clusters-so they did a 2nd –even more intense.i felt toxic in that area for days-and said Id never do it again.it warrented a needle biopsy-saying i have a 1 in 4 chance its cancer.i declined as i dont trust them.i started reading-and couldnt believe the controversy–now its7 months later and ive been feeling sickly in that area-i think they may have done damage and im angry–now not knowing what to do.dr orderes another mammo-i refused.the dr says thermography is a step backwards-and i dont know who to believe-i wish i could find someone with the experience-
May 4, 2009 @ 8:47 am
At my last mammogram, I was told I had microcalcifications and would have to have a mammo every 6 months. When I suggested this was probably more dangerous than just leaving it, they assured me that it was essential to keep an eye on it, as apparently there’s a 50% risk of developing cancer.
feeling very confused and anxious – has anyone been in the same situation?
March 19, 2010 @ 7:02 pm