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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have posted skepticism of mammograms (though I also pointed out that breast MRIs are an excellent tool for women with dense breasts) but I can't abide the conspiracy theories here. The toxic drugs, surgery and radiation saved my life when I was diagnosed with stage II breast cancer. The treatments suck but for most women they work and they're the best we have. And the only reason we have them at all is because of the breast cancer movement started in the 1970s by WOMEN themselves who were sick of the fact that there were no effective treatments available, just, essentially, the luck of the drawer.

I posted early in about the lack of confidence in the current screening tools for dense breasts. MRIs provided me with ZERO peace of mind that there wasn't a hidden cancer in my non-affected breast. MRIs have a high rate of false positives. I am baffled why you keep noting (falsely, I think) that they are an "excellent" tool. Can you point to any studies showing this? That is a genuine question. I encourage you to jump over to the breast cancer forum and read the stories of women who elected mastectomy only to find out an invasive cancer was in that same stage 0 breast.

Threads like this frustrate me because many women who have not walked in these shoes judge the choices of BC survivors. And, no, I don't distinguish between the stage 0's and the higher stages among us. You have no idea if you would choose to be over treated until you hear those dreaded words...until you then look at your spouse...until you look at your children...your loved ones...consider your future. You just don't know! All you get is probabilities from doctors, nothing more. Sure you can go the additional screening route and have alternating ultrasounds, MRIs or mammograms every six months or every three months if that makes you feel better. Then add in a biopsy or two to go along with those evey year. That option did not work for me. I had had enough trauma, real trauma being scanned and biopsied after diagnosis. I even posted back then about the horrific biopsy where a nurse casually stated, "We must've blown through a nerve!" The pain...the blood...OMG!

I love a discussion that empowers us to be better informed about the latest data, thus allowing an individual to make the best choice for her. But can that be had in the absence of the "tsk tsk" finger shaking from those who have never been diagnosed.

I'm with you. I would definitely treat. Which is why I am so upset at all the testing that produces so many false positives and DCIS that they can't tell either/or. Sometimes more is not better.

[Anonymous]

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.

I noticed you cited a .gov site. I just want to say that I'm no Obama fan, but this is something his administration is bang-on about and I'm glad they are looking at the science.

[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.

I noticed you cited a .gov site. I just want to say that I'm no Obama fan, but this is something his administration is bang-on about and I'm glad they are looking at the science.

PubMed? I'm not sure what Obama has to do with it, it's been around forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

[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."

The problem with the TED talk is we've since found out that breast density is not a big as risk factor as once thought. Consider the timing of breast density 'news' with new laws that the states and feds are passing/trying to get passed.

In fact, the death rate from breast cancer is higher for women with fatty breasts, and further imaging just for dense breasts is leading to too many false positives and unnecessary biopsies - and worry.

I, for one, am sick of the medical community, politicians and politicians turning my body into nothing but a ticking time bomb. That's no way to enjoy life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. Once more with feeling: mammograms do not lead to metastasis. You are spreading the craziest, most paranoid "info" that I have ever seen on this topic, based solely on your imagination. Please stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow. Once more with feeling: mammograms do not lead to metastasis. You are spreading the craziest, most paranoid "info" that I have ever seen on this topic, based solely on your imagination. Please stop.

An overzealous mammography can rupture a breast implant but rupture a tumor? So can simple surgery to remove it. If it's ready to blow, it's ready to blow and mammograms do not CAUSE this on its own.

[Anonymous]

Also, understand breast density is related to age and your menstrual status. Non-menopausal women are supposed to be more dense and that does not mean they are at greater risk. That's why the new guidelines don't like the 'start at 40' rule.

I am 53 and NOT menopausal. Not even showing signs of slowing down, really, according to my doc. This is consistent with female relatives who stopped between 55 and 57. So I can easily see a radiologist looking at my age, not knowing my menstrual status and thinking my tissue is too dense for my age.

The breast density risk comes in after menopause, for women who don't develop more fatty tissue. For pre-menopausal women, it's normal.

[Anonymous]

Good article on breast density and the crazy alarm bells going off now:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/07/dense-breasts-mammogram-dont-afraid.html

[Anonymous]

It's critical to understand as much as possible with regard to your own health care. If you see a health care provider, bring a list of questions for them to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's critical to understand as much as possible with regard to your own health care. If you see a health care provider, bring a list of questions for them to answer.

It's also critical to understand that health care providers are human and are influenced by the same media hype, by fears of lawsuits, and by their own biases.

So a list of questions is great, but doesn't substitute for research and second opinions by experts who have a more realistic view.

[Anonymous]

Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's critical to understand as much as possible with regard to your own health care. If you see a health care provider, bring a list of questions for them to answer.

It's also critical to understand that health care providers are human and are influenced by the same media hype, by fears of lawsuits, and by their own biases.

So a list of questions is great, but doesn't substitute for research and second opinions by experts who have a more realistic view.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's critical to understand as much as possible with regard to your own health care. If you see a health care provider, bring a list of questions for them to answer.

It's also critical to understand that health care providers are human and are influenced by the same media hype, by fears of lawsuits, and by their own biases.

So a list of questions is great, but doesn't substitute for research and second opinions by experts who have a more realistic view.

Agreed.

Dr. Google always knows better than your own health care provider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's critical to understand as much as possible with regard to your own health care. If you see a health care provider, bring a list of questions for them to answer.

It's also critical to understand that health care providers are human and are influenced by the same media hype, by fears of lawsuits, and by their own biases.

So a list of questions is great, but doesn't substitute for research and second opinions by experts who have a more realistic view.

Agreed.

Dr. Google always knows better than your own health care provider.

Doctors unfortunately are required to spit out the party line. Few are willing to risk everything by saying anything that may be controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's critical to understand as much as possible with regard to your own health care. If you see a health care provider, bring a list of questions for them to answer.

It's also critical to understand that health care providers are human and are influenced by the same media hype, by fears of lawsuits, and by their own biases.

So a list of questions is great, but doesn't substitute for research and second opinions by experts who have a more realistic view.

Agreed.

Dr. Google always knows better than your own health care provider.

Dr. Google has a ton of medical journals, studies, etc on line that help you be your own best advocate.