Interesting research on the over diagnosis of breast 'cancer' due to mammograms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

In Europe, which is really several countries with several health systems, I believe it's a cost/benefit analysis. The insurers really look at efficacy and mammograms don't lower the death rate. They are unconcerned with it lowering your death rate. They won't approve a procedure across the whole population because it would save one life. When I lived there, they also no longer recommended self exam because it came up with too many false positives (even though it was free). I'm not sure if they have changed that line of thinking.

[Anonymous]

In Virginis, one woman who had dense breasts and a missed cancer has managed to get a law passed that requires Virginia to notify women of breast density. This has resulted in more anxiety for women, and, of course, the demand for more testing,all of which can lead to overtreatment, surgery being the least worrisome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion about over detection is only correct if the actual rate of occurrence of invasive, life threatening breast cancer has been steady. That seems to be an assumption by the researchers. Maybe early detection is saving more lives than recognized because cancer death rates would otherwise be climbing.

Does anyone know how likely this might be? I have no idea, but our world has become so much more toxic in the last few decades. The rates for many other diseases have been climbing, especially autoimmune.

It's a lot like projected budgets in politics. Having costs come in under projections have not saved actual money. Much like a dress on sale. You haven't saved, unless you didn't buy it at all.

What they DO know is the number of deaths from breast cancer is much lower than the rate of false positives from mammogram. Sonograms lead to more biopsies, as do MRIs. 3-D is showing more promise, but it also leads to the detection of lesions that might never have needed treatment. Chemo and radiation is nothing to sneeze at. And then there is the lasting emotional trauma of callbacks and subsequent testing.

Thanks. I guess what I really am wondering is how reliable are the cancer rate projections. My mother is going through right now, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion about over detection is only correct if the actual rate of occurrence of invasive, life threatening breast cancer has been steady. That seems to be an assumption by the researchers. Maybe early detection is saving more lives than recognized because cancer death rates would otherwise be climbing.

Does anyone know how likely this might be? I have no idea, but our world has become so much more toxic in the last few decades. The rates for many other diseases have been climbing, especially autoimmune.

It's a lot like projected budgets in politics. Having costs come in under projections have not saved actual money. Much like a dress on sale. You haven't saved, unless you didn't buy it at all.

What they DO know is the number of deaths from breast cancer is much lower than the rate of false positives from mammogram. Sonograms lead to more biopsies, as do MRIs. 3-D is showing more promise, but it also leads to the detection of lesions that might never have needed treatment. Chemo and radiation is nothing to sneeze at. And then there is the lasting emotional trauma of callbacks and subsequent testing.

Thanks. I guess what I really am wondering is how reliable are the cancer rate projections. My mother is going through right now, actually.

They honestly don't know. Canadian and Norwegian studies do not support lowered death rates. Incidentally, breast cancer is more deadly in younger women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

In Europe, which is really several countries with several health systems, I believe it's a cost/benefit analysis. The insurers really look at efficacy and mammograms don't lower the death rate. They are unconcerned with it lowering your death rate. They won't approve a procedure across the whole population because it would save one life. When I lived there, they also no longer recommended self exam because it came up with too many false positives (even though it was free). I'm not sure if they have changed that line of thinking.

Does ANY country promote mammograms even half as heavily as we do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer"?? Really?
I've never heard/read that the radiation in a mammogram has been proven to cause cancer.

Use some common sense. Radiation causes cancer.

But in such small amounts, I would think the risk would be minuscule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Mammogram radiation is a known cause of cancer"?? Really?
I've never heard/read that the radiation in a mammogram has been proven to cause cancer.

Use some common sense. Radiation causes cancer.

But in such small amounts, I would think the risk would be minuscule.

Repeated "small amounts" add up to large amounts. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

This is absolutely not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

This is absolutely not true.

Are they just dumber than we are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

This is absolutely not true.

Why would they lie? You're ashamed, that's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that the "slam-o-gram" can burst a small tumor and make it spread.

Isn't this why physicians don't do this in Europe?
No financial profits.

In Europe, which is really several countries with several health systems, I believe it's a cost/benefit analysis. The insurers really look at efficacy and mammograms don't lower the death rate. They are unconcerned with it lowering your death rate. They won't approve a procedure across the whole population because it would save one life. When I lived there, they also no longer recommended self exam because it came up with too many false positives (even though it was free). I'm not sure if they have changed that line of thinking.

Does ANY country promote mammograms even half as heavily as we do?

No. That's good and bad.

[Anonymous]

The biggest issue is the number of women treated with toxic drugs, surgery and radiation due to fear of lawsuits (and for the woman, fear of death).

In addition, mammography has such a high sue-rate that doctors add more tests to protect themselves. And who can blame them?

It's such a double-edged sword.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue is the number of women treated with toxic drugs, surgery and radiation due to fear of lawsuits (and for the woman, fear of death).

In addition, mammography has such a high sue-rate that doctors add more tests to protect themselves. And who can blame them?

It's such a double-edged sword.

I just stay away from the scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue is the number of women treated with toxic drugs, surgery and radiation due to fear of lawsuits (and for the woman, fear of death).

In addition, mammography has such a high sue-rate that doctors add more tests to protect themselves. And who can blame them?

It's such a double-edged sword.

I just stay away from the scam.

Don't go? I think if this scan comes back normal, I might stop. I'd rather risk finding a lump later than being treated for things that shouldn't be treated. That doesn't seem right. When the technology is better, i.e. they can tell which to treat how, then I can return. Until then? I simply don't trust things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And then there is the varying nature of cancer itself. I have three friends with breast cancer. all found lumps. All are still alive. One had a family history - her mother is in her 80s and still alive.

Research has shown that it's the nature of the cancer that's the key. Detecting a tumor that is destined to kill you earlier - early detection and treatment of that tumor has not affected death rates; you just know earlier. Not sure that's a good thing.

The research beng targeted at unlocking the key to which tumors will behave and which won't is the real key.

huge 2nd