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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you get your doc to agree to a breast MRI if nothing abnormal is there? I have dense breasts and have had a few call-backs and decided aftr the last one that mammogram doesn't make sense for me. Should I push to get yearly/bi-yearly breast MRI instead?

S
3-D mammography is better for your situation

I had 3_d each time, so why would that be more helpful? They still call back for more scans due to density. Not arguing, just looking for info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/how_many_lives_mammograms_save.aspx


This article is one doctor's opinions regarding the questionable value of mammograms. I provide it because it gives good medical journal citations at the bottom that one can go read directly on pubmed ... original data that is unfiltered by a biased writer and more fully discussed than you will ever find on a "news" outlet can be helpful for personal decisions of this importance.

Thank you for this link. Dr. Fuhrman has a lot of good insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG, so much misinformation. It is not true that most invasive breast cancers are fatal. Most are not, but certainly metastatic cancers are. Most women who get breast cancer do NOT have a family history -- myself included -- and you should not rely on that when making choices about screening unless its to increase your screening because you have a family history. Not having one does not mean you are safe. As for cancer being a scam, then what explains the funerals I've been to? Did those people so-called die?

The screenings are useful only if the rate of false positives from the test are less than the number of true cancers caught. . I don't consider a 1/3 callback rate good screening. In addition, when you are diagnosed with cancer that might not be cancer, you are put into the cancer category and almost all women seek invasive treatment, which, in itself, is harmful.

End with the fact that when it's said mammograms drop the death rate, it really means potential death rates. Studies now show actual death rates have not dropped.

The breast density law - research published in 2012 shows the density itself isn't a risk factor. This is after years of being told the opposite.

This law will probably force a callback for me. I have dense breasts and because I am 53, they will assume I'm post menopausal. I'm not. I will not go for further testing unless there is something besides fear-mongering, ie you're clear but maybe not because we can't know. That's epic bullsh*t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you get your doc to agree to a breast MRI if nothing abnormal is there? I have dense breasts and have had a few call-backs and decided aftr the last one that mammogram doesn't make sense for me. Should I push to get yearly/bi-yearly breast MRI instead?

S
3-D mammography is better for your situation

I had 3_d each time, so why would that be more helpful? They still call back for more scans due to density. Not arguing, just looking for info.

If it's just due to density, they are simply covering their own butts. Otherwise, you'd get additional testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you get your doc to agree to a breast MRI if nothing abnormal is there? I have dense breasts and have had a few call-backs and decided aftr the last one that mammogram doesn't make sense for me. Should I push to get yearly/bi-yearly breast MRI instead?

S
3-D mammography is better for your situation

I had 3_d each time, so why would that be more helpful? They still call back for more scans due to density. Not arguing, just looking for info.

Be aware, this is all sparked now through new legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, just saw this link to a TED talk on one of my facebook friends page--many women in her family have died of breast cancer and it's a topic that concerns her deeply. I was fascinated:

http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_rhodes
"Working with a team of physicists, Dr. Deborah Rhodes developed a new tool for tumor detection that's 3 times as effective as traditional mammograms for women with dense breast tissue. The life-saving implications are stunning. So why haven't we heard of it? Rhodes shares the story behind the tool's creation, and the web of politics and economics that keep it from mainstream use."

Every woman needs to get informed with this TED talk, by a courageous female physician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22184734

To prevent one death from breast cancer, one must screen 400 women annually over a 10 year period. 4,000 mammograms to save one life. If you or someone you love is that one person, I will not debate the absolute value of mammograms. But step back and consider the dollar cost of those 4,000 mammograms. And while I do not have the statistics handy, I am quite sure that more than one false positive accompanied by unnecessary treatment is associated with those 4,000 screens.

Even reducing screening to every other year seems like a reasonable tactic. A decision for each of us to make without pressure from the pink ribbon crowd.

PP with mathematician DH here: I've decided to wait until I am 50 (or thereabouts) to have a mammogram and resist the pressuring of the doctors. At that point, I will decide how frequently to go back for rescreening, but it will not be every year-unless there is a condition they need to watch.

All women I have know who have had breast cancer have discovered it themselves, except one, even though they had regular mammograms. The one exception, was found during a routine screening and I honestly believe she would have lived longer and had a better quality of life if she had just not known. All my friends who discovered breast cancer before they were 50 died from it--unless they immediately had a double mastectomy. Most were fit and ate well. Most of my friends who are overweight have not had breast cancer so far. Again, these are personal experiences, highly variable, and may not mean much in the long run at all.

But the statistics, plus my friends experiences, have led me to opt out of the "pink ribbon crowd" and just screen and support research for all cancers.

100% true. I had the same experiences with my friends. All had lumps. And agree about you mammo'd friend. My husband is also a numbers guy, and said the number of false positives is inexcuseable, and the test would not be considered viable in another field.

This breast e

[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.

This is absolutely not true.

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

If I can do nothing else today, please let me educate others in this thread that this is ABSOLUTELY not true. Cancer already has it's own form of spreading- it's called metastasis. The slow/steady pressure of a mammogram does not cause ANYTHING to burst.

And while I'm at it, having surgery and 'letting the air touch it' also ABSOLUTELY does not cause cancer to spread. I've had many good clients defer surgery and treatment because of this urban legend. Please do not perpetuate this. Think about it: if cancer were airborne, we'd all be dead in the OR along with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women I know dutifully go each year for their mammogram. Most women I know also drink alcohol fairly regularly, are overweight, and eat a lot of junk and too few fruits and vegetables. Too much emphasis on early detection and pink ribbon campaigns and not nearly enough prevention, IMHO.

If only it were true. I'm a breast cancer survivor who has posted on this thread -- I had node-positive cancer. When I was diagnosed I had been a vegetarian my entire adult life, I was physically fit -- a runner -- and not at all overweight, I was not a person who ate junk food, at all, and as for drinking if you count two or three glasses of wine in a week as "regular" I guess I did that. No family history. Prevention is the dream but we just aren't there yet. Diet and exercise can help around the margins. Probably some breast cancers every year can be prevented through better diet and exercise. But not most of them. Just as you can't assume you are safe if you have no family history, you can't assume you are safe if you have a healthy lifestyle.

And blaming the victim? Not right. Genetics and God. After that? We don't know

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is absolutely not true.

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

If I can do nothing else today, please let me educate others in this thread that this is ABSOLUTELY not true. Cancer already has it's own form of spreading- it's called metastasis. The slow/steady pressure of a mammogram does not cause ANYTHING to burst.

And while I'm at it, having surgery and 'letting the air touch it' also ABSOLUTELY does not cause cancer to spread. I've had many good clients defer surgery and treatment because of this urban legend. Please do not perpetuate this. Think about it: if cancer were airborne, we'd all be dead in the OR along with it.

Correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is absolutely not true.

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

If I can do nothing else today, please let me educate others in this thread that this is ABSOLUTELY not true. Cancer already has it's own form of spreading- it's called metastasis. The slow/steady pressure of a mammogram does not cause ANYTHING to burst.

And while I'm at it, having surgery and 'letting the air touch it' also ABSOLUTELY does not cause cancer to spread. I've had many good clients defer surgery and treatment because of this urban legend. Please do not perpetuate this. Think about it: if cancer were airborne, we'd all be dead in the OR along with it.

1. I've never heard anyone say cancer was airborne. Please just stop being ridiculous.

2. Slamograms are not "slow and stready pressure." You've never had one, apparently.

People like you are a major reason why we are so poorly cared for. Enough already with the constant scamming. Your goldmine has run its course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, just saw this link to a TED talk on one of my facebook friends page--many women in her family have died of breast cancer and it's a topic that concerns her deeply. I was fascinated:

http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_rhodes
"Working with a team of physicists, Dr. Deborah Rhodes developed a new tool for tumor detection that's 3 times as effective as traditional mammograms for women with dense breast tissue. The life-saving implications are stunning. So why haven't we heard of it? Rhodes shares the story behind the tool's creation, and the web of politics and economics that keep it from mainstream use."

Every woman needs to get informed with this TED talk, by a courageous female physician.

This.

[Anonymous]

I did not read the entire thread but wanted to share my experience with finding out how I "qualify" for a breast MRI. My doctor obtained my lifetime risk by using this model:
http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/
I have no family history...but based on my past breast history, I received a lifetime risk of 34.8.
The drs office called my insurance company for me and found out that BC/BS will pay for my MRI.
I experienced my past breast problems in the DC area. NO DR TOOK THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. I received my care in DC from "top doctors" who I paid CASH to see.
Best of luck to all who go through this very stressful time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women I know dutifully go each year for their mammogram. Most women I know also drink alcohol fairly regularly, are overweight, and eat a lot of junk and too few fruits and vegetables. Too much emphasis on early detection and pink ribbon campaigns and not nearly enough prevention, IMHO.

If only it were true. I'm a breast cancer survivor who has posted on this thread -- I had node-positive cancer. When I was diagnosed I had been a vegetarian my entire adult life, I was physically fit -- a runner -- and not at all overweight, I was not a person who ate junk food, at all, and as for drinking if you count two or three glasses of wine in a week as "regular" I guess I did that. No family history. Prevention is the dream but we just aren't there yet. Diet and exercise can help around the margins. Probably some breast cancers every year can be prevented through better diet and exercise. But not most of them. Just as you can't assume you are safe if you have no family history, you can't assume you are safe if you have a healthy lifestyle.

I agree with most of what you say and I am not at all trying to blame the victim. However, given that more than two thirds of this country is overweight or obese, I still believe that more healthful diet would make a difference at the population level. The government currently recommends 9 servings of fruits and veggies a day. And if you exclude french fried potatoes and ketchup, how many of us really do that?! Even vegetarians tend to fill up on grains rather than true veggies. So my point is not that mammograms are bad, just that they are insufficient. Best wishes to you and may you continue to thrive.

You would sneer at my son, who is obese. What you would not know, is that his thyroid was sluggish and he had insulin resistance and I could not get a pediatric endocrinologist to touch it, due to lawsuit issues. At that time, he was simply overweight. At 18 I took him to an adult endo who said the poor kid's metabolism was so slow, nothing but meds would have helped him, meds he was denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.brightpink.org/knowledge-is-power/assess-your-risk/

Please note that in addition to family history, what you weigh, what you eat, whether you exercise, whether you drink ... all are risk factors. Everyone knows (I think) that you can be the unlucky one even without even one of those risk factors. But on a population level (that is, when looking at hundreds of millions of women), they do make a difference.

You do understand these 'think pink' sites are political and you really can't always trust them. Look back into the medical studies.