Annual cost of lymphedema treatment fell $12,000, study found
by Happy_HealthyGirl on Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:00 AM
I have seen on 4 or so web sites that say that mammograms cause cancer. I know this sentence has a big "NO WAY' factor to it, because we have been oh so brain washed into thinking that mammograms are great and if you 'catch' the cancer early there is a better chance for a cure. Check out newstarget.com and mercola.com both are trusted health sites that tell you exacly why mammograms are not good for us...
Originally published February 14 2007
by David Gutierrez (NewsTarget) An increasing number of doctors are contesting the claim that annual mammograms decrease women's risk of dying from breast cancer.
Danish researcher Dr. Peter Gotzsche first made this claim in a study published in "The Lancet" in October 2006. Gotzsche had re-analyzed the studies originally done on the benefits of mammograms and found them unconvincing.
Since then, other doctors have begun to assert that in addition to failing to offer protection, mammograms — which involve exposing patients to radiation —may actually increase women's risk of cancer.
"The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London.
According to Canadian columnist Dr. W. Gifford -Jones, women between the ages of 40 and 49 who have regular mammograms are twice as likely to die from breast cancer as women who are not screened.
"Experts say you have to screen 2,000 women for 10 years for one benefit," he wrote recently.
Gifford-Jones also points to other risks, from the physical to the psychological. According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death.
He also pointed to the trauma suffered by women who receive false positives from their mammograms, and to the dangerous sense of security felt by those who receive false negatives.
Studies show that mammograms fail to detect cancer 30 percent of the time in women aged 40 to 49. In addition, it can take eight years before a breast tumor is large enough to detect, by which time the cancer could have spread to other parts of the body.
"Mammograms actually harm far more women than they help," said Mike Adams, author of "The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D," a free report that teaches prevention strategies for breast and prostate cancer. "They are used more as a recruiting tool to ensnare women into a system of medical control based on false diagnosis and fear tactics. Most women then give in to chemotherapy, surgery or radiation treatments that may ultimately harm them or even kill them."
by scimmia on Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:00 AM
ahh, really the more I read and learn about cancer (since my uncle got diagnosed and died just 3 weeks ago) the more I became competely no confident about doctors and their therapy... I have always been a supporter of traditional medicine, but now I am not anymore.
Apparently chemiotherapy can worsen the cancer, mammograms causes cancer, all these soo breaktrhough new medicines just bring a number of side fx which are terrifing ( my uncle, while taking tarceva, looked like a blood mask for its side fx, plus he made him so constipated that he got a blockage and had to be operated on top of the bad cancer he had).
I wonder why do I have to trust the doctors just because of a cultural and traditional imposition??? Just because I have been educated in trusting the doctors?
Maybe alternative medicine do really work, the more I hear about the lies of the traditional medicine, the more I got close to it.
by Oncrx on Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:00 AM
its a given that women who get mammograms still get breast cancer. There is a fairly high rate of false positives ( mammogram shows cancer but none exists) and false negatives ( mammograms show no cancer but it does exist). Thats not the same as saying the mammogram caused the cancer. Most docs say women should not panic and should not stop having mammograms. The importance of having a mammogram far outweighs any risk from the radiation. You get about the same amount of radiation from a mammogram as you do when you fly cross country. Are you planning to stop flying?
no, but the plane is not supposed to cure me or prevent deseases.
And also, what it has been said is not only related to radiation:
"According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death"
And also, what about the other damaging therapy?
if someone really believes that mammograms cause cancer then I would only ask for proof. Thats a well designed study not a web site or a story about a friend that had a mammogram and then got cancer. In the absence of such its just an opinion, usually based on fear or misunderstanding. In case you ask, there is proof that mammograms are beneficial. Mammograms don't prevent breast cancer, but they can save lives by finding breast cancer as early as possible. For example, mammograms have been shown to lower the risk of dying from breast cancer by 35% in women over the age of 50; studies suggest for women between 40 and 50 they may lower the risk of dying from breast cancer by 25–35%.
by Suzq53 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:00 AM
Regarding the article "Do mammograms CAUSE cancer?" I had a mammogram when I was 48 years old, after not having one for two years. The mammogram detected a VERY small tumor, that I would never have been able to feel/see. I had no breast cancer in my family, and no concern that I would be at risk for it. Even though it was small, the cancerous cells had already spread to one of my lymph nodes, where another (and much larger) tumor had formed. It was an aggressive form of cancer (estrogen positive). I had surgery, chemo and radiation -- and yes it was a horrible, scary medical process. But I'm alive today (six and one-half years later)...and I feel I'm alive due to having that mammogram.
I understand the concerns about having unnecessary medical procedures, and exposure to radiation when it may not be medically necessary; but advice to not have mammograms, without another option for early detection and treatment of this horrible death-causing disease (that affects 1 out of 8 women during their lifetime) --- seems irresponsible.
I've read recently about having MRI screenings instead of mammograms (more reliable). But many insurance companies will not pay for this more expensive procedure. And, the contrast dye used in this procedure may be another health concern. With all the money and research going into this subject, I can only hope that a safe, effective early-detection procedure can be developed --- and SOON.
by chrissy1 on Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:00 AM
mammos use oinising radiation,breast tissue is really sensitive and accumilates radiation,about 40 kgs of pressure is use to flatten your breasts for each xray,the manipulation of tumours in mice during a trial caused a huge spread of the cancer cells(what does a mammo do?),chemo and rad therapy lead to other health problems,the data given by agencies promoting mammos errs very generously on their side.sunlight(not sunburn)promotes vit d which protects against cancer.There are non invasive,no physical intervention,and much safer alternatives,ultrasound,thermography but none compare to a careful and good diet,watch out for chemicals in everything and always,always research and question anything you are told by health care providers.
On 10/8/2007 scimmia wrote:no, but the plane is not supposed to cure me or prevent deseases.And also, what it has been said is not only related to radiation:"According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death"And also, what about the other damaging therapy?
by Shemay on Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:00 AM
by Nomad123 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 04:22 AM
When you track a discussion, you will get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to track this discussion?
If you stop tracking this discussion, you will no longer get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to stop tracking this discussion?
If you were considering traveling for cancer treatment, which headline would you find more interesting?
Destination: HOPE. Cancer care that is worth the trip.
Over 84% of our patients travel to our hospital from another state
Neither headline is interesting
We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.