Go Back   Natural Medicine Talk > Health > Women's Health

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-31-2011, 05:22 PM
kind2creatures's Avatar
kind2creatures kind2creatures is online now
...elusive dreamer
Wiki Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 6,439
Blog Entries: 47
kind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to beholdkind2creatures is a splendid one to behold
Exclamation Mammogram Dangers

Article explains the dangers of annual mammograms for breast cancer diagnosis in women.

Quote:
Routine mammography exposes the individual to an exceptionally high amount of ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is something we are all exposed to in nature and the body can handle a certain amount each year without it becoming risky. One series of mammograms (2 xrays on each breast) is equivalent to the radiation dose of 1000 normal chest or spinal x-rays.

Due to this enormous blast of radiation many experts warn that mammography actually increases the risk of breast cancer. Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, estimated that annual mammography increases the risk of breast cancer by 2% each year. The National Cancer Institute has stated that mammography is especially dangerous for younger women. In fact, they have stated that it could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Other studies have shown up to a 52% increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual testing.

The incidence of certain forms of breast cancer such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328% since mammography was introduced. Cancer research has also found a gene called oncogene AC that is very sensitive to radiation. Women who have this gene are at extraordinarily high risk when exposed to mammography. Researchers estimate that 10,000 of these gene carriers will die of breast cancer each year due to mammography.





Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-31-2011, 10:37 PM
saved1986's Avatar
saved1986 saved1986 is offline
In seaerch of spicy food
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,068
saved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura about
Default

mammograms also miss cancers if they are more towards the armpit. The other problem with western medicine is it is too concentrated on diagnosis and not enough on treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-01-2011, 09:23 AM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
pinballdoctor pinballdoctor is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,919
pinballdoctor will become famous soon enoughpinballdoctor will become famous soon enough
Default

There is no safe amount of radiation.

Ionized radiation causes cancer, even the medical industry won't deny that, however, it is also big business with huge profits..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-01-2011, 12:51 PM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
Ted_Hutchinson is a jewel in the roughTed_Hutchinson is a jewel in the roughTed_Hutchinson is a jewel in the rough
Default Claims of breast cancer screening success are dishonest, say critics

Claims of breast cancer screening success are dishonest, say critics By Nina Lakhani Thursday, 1 September 2011
Quote:
Plans to expand the national breast screening programme have been called into question amid fresh claims that women are being misled about the benefits.

Claims by the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) that screening reduces breast cancer deaths by a third and cuts the risk of mastectomy are dishonest, according to research published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. The claims are based on "cherry-picked" data while "inconvenient truths" about the greater impact of new treatments and increased awareness among women are ignored, claim scientists from the Nordic Cochrane Centre, an independent institution that specialises in analysing research data.

The paper calls into question the integrity of eminent UK scientists who insist that the programme saves hundreds of lives every year even though similar improvements have occurred among women ineligible for screening. The accusations were last night dismissed by the NHSBSP as unfounded.

The paper is likely to reignite the heated scientific debate about the value of breast screening, which costs the NHS more than 80m a year. Critics say the programme's benefits have always been overstated.

Peter Gotzsche, professor of clinical research, design and analysis at the University of Copenhagen and the study's lead author, said: "Senior researchers who are affiliated with the UK screening programme continue to distort the facts even though we, and others, have pointed out their errors.

"I can only speculate why, but when you have believed in something for a long time and your career is built on that belief, it is very difficult to change. These people, in a scientific sense, are behaving outright dishonestly and doing women a great disservice."

A flurry of papers published in the last two years raised concerns about the harmful effects of scanning women due to high rates of over-diagnosis. From these studies, the new paper estimates that screening leads to 50 per cent over-diagnosis of breast cancers tumours identified and treated needlessly as they would never actually have progressed or caused illness.

The authors criticise the NHSBSP information leaflet which they say plays down this risk. But supporters insist the public health benefits far outweigh the risks. Professor Julietta Patnick, director of the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, said: "We know that 97 per cent of women with screen-detected cancers are alive five years later compared to just over 80 per cent of women diagnosed without screening, and screeninglowers a woman's risk of having a mastectomy."

Screening for younger and older women will be expanded over the next few years, costing an extra 12m a year. A Department of Health spokesperson said: "According to the vast majority of experts, breast screening reduces deaths from breast cancer... We are expanding the programme so that we save even more lives."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-01-2011, 03:57 PM
Arrowwind09's Avatar
Arrowwind09 Arrowwind09 is offline
Standing at the Portal
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,554
Arrowwind09 has a spectacular aura aboutArrowwind09 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Thermograms are safe and reportedly more effective than mammograms. If you don't have that available might as well get a sonogram if you are suspecting something. Any spot on a mammogram will be checked out by a sonogram anyway.
__________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Marcus Aurelius
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-01-2011, 07:54 PM
saved1986's Avatar
saved1986 saved1986 is offline
In seaerch of spicy food
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,068
saved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowwind09 View Post
Thermograms are safe and reportedly more effective than mammograms. If you don't have that available might as well get a sonogram if you are suspecting something. Any spot on a mammogram will be checked out by a sonogram anyway.

Why don't they just do a sonogram then?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-02-2011, 12:11 PM
Mad Scientest's Avatar
Mad Scientest Mad Scientest is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,077
Mad Scientest has a spectacular aura aboutMad Scientest has a spectacular aura aboutMad Scientest has a spectacular aura about
Default

OK that would seem to make a lot of sense, but it wont make as many dollars.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2011, 01:38 PM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
Ted_Hutchinson is a jewel in the roughTed_Hutchinson is a jewel in the roughTed_Hutchinson is a jewel in the rough
Default

Breast screening: some inconvenient truths (28 Oct 2010)
UCL Lunch Hour Lecture: Breast screening: some inconvenient truths

Professor Michael Baum (UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences)

The pro-screening lobby is locked into a mindset dating back to the late 1980s. Since then our understanding of the biology of breast cancer and its treatment has moved on whilst the screening programme continues without modification based on the results of trials reported in 1987. This lecture will discuss some of the harmful problems of this over-diagnosing system, and will look at the need for radical change to bring the entire programme up to date with modern practice based on risk assessment and risk management.

This lecture marks Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2011, 10:37 PM
Arrowwind09's Avatar
Arrowwind09 Arrowwind09 is offline
Standing at the Portal
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,554
Arrowwind09 has a spectacular aura aboutArrowwind09 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saved1986 View Post
Why don't they just do a sonogram then?
Its all about money. They have created a billion dollar empire on creating the availability of mammograms, long before anyone was thinking too much about how dangerous they were... and there are not enough sonogram techs.... its a good profession to get into if one is so inclined
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2011, 10:42 PM
Arrowwind09's Avatar
Arrowwind09 Arrowwind09 is offline
Standing at the Portal
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,554
Arrowwind09 has a spectacular aura aboutArrowwind09 has a spectacular aura about
Default

HOW TO PREPARE FOR A MAMMOGRAM--

Many women are afraid of their first mammogram, and even if they have had them before, there is fear. But there is no need to worry. By taking a few minutes each day for a week preceding the exam and doing the following practice exercises, you will be totally prepared for the test, and best of all, you can do these simple practice exercises right in your home.

EXERCISE 1: Open your refrigerator door, and insert one breast between the door and the main box. Have one of your strongest friends slam the door shut as hard as possible and lean on the door for good measure Hold that position for five seconds. Repeat in case the first time wasn't effective.

EXERCISE 2: Visit your garage at 3 a.m. when the temperature of the cement floor is just perfect. Take off all your clothes and lie comfortably on the floor sideways with one breast wedged under the rear tire of the car. Ask a friend to slowly back the car up until your breast is sufficiently flattened and chilled. Switch sides, and repeat for the other breast.

EXERCISE 3: Freeze two metal bookends overnight. Strip to the waist. Invite a stranger into the room. Have the stranger press the bookends against either side of one of your breasts and smash the bookends together as hard as he/she can. Set an appointment with the stranger to meet next year to do it again. You are now properly prepared!

And just a thought for all you women out there: MENtal illness, MENstrual cramps, MENtal breakdown, MENopause. Ever notice how all of women's problems start with men? And when we have real problems, it's HISterectomy!

P.S. Don't forget the "GUY"necologist!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-04-2011, 06:17 AM
EarlyBird EarlyBird is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern Ky.
Posts: 2,059
EarlyBird is on a distinguished road
Smile

Hilarious, Arrow! but basically accurate!
I had just one mammogram years ago, somewhere in my late 40's or early 50's. I'm now almost 76.
Since I breast fed all 4 of my children for at least 10 months each, plus there's no breast cancer
in my past female relatives, I figure I'm not too likely to get it.
I don't recall being afraid at the time, just shocked at the cold & the pain.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-04-2011, 11:51 AM
saved1986's Avatar
saved1986 saved1986 is offline
In seaerch of spicy food
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,068
saved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowwind09 View Post
Its all about money. They have created a billion dollar empire on creating the availability of mammograms, long before anyone was thinking too much about how dangerous they were... and there are not enough sonogram techs.... its a good profession to get into if one is so inclined

GE Medical, Siemens and Picker Big corporations.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-05-2011, 06:10 AM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
Ted_Hutchinson is a jewel in the roughTed_Hutchinson is a jewel in the roughTed_Hutchinson is a jewel in the rough
Default

Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database
Quote:
Conclusions The contrast between the time differences in implementation of mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality.
Basically it's a polite way of saying mammography screening is a waste of time and money.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-05-2011, 08:02 PM
dogwoman's Avatar
dogwoman dogwoman is offline
Guide
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: central New Mexico
Posts: 268
dogwoman is on a distinguished road
Default

Mammograms are one of my pet peeves. Early mammograms used such a high dose of radiation they caused a high percentage of breast cancer in women. The radiation dose was reduced when studies proved breast cancer was rising rather than being conquered by mammogram diagnosis. Damage is done to breast tissues during the process of mammography, radiation is not the only danger. Mammography is a huge money making industry which will not go away until women educate themselves, and stop responding to the fear mongering of the industry which falsely claims annual mammograms are necessary to prevent death due to breast cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-06-2011, 04:38 PM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
pinballdoctor pinballdoctor is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,919
pinballdoctor will become famous soon enoughpinballdoctor will become famous soon enough
Default

For every woman "saved" by mammograms, 10 to 15 will get cancer, and at least half will die within 5 years.

Mainstream medical thinking begins with detecting cancer by using methods that cause cancer.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
breast cancer, breast cancer screening, mammograms, radiation, x-rays
Please reply to this thread with any new information or opinions.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Health Dangers of Mold liverock General Discussions 1 07-30-2011 08:56 AM
Mammogram Risks (article) kind2creatures Women's Health 0 07-18-2011 10:21 AM
Dangers at Aging US Nuclear PLants Arrowwind09 General Discussions 0 07-08-2011 12:43 PM
Cat litter dangers Xania Pet Health 23 08-20-2010 02:29 PM
Benefits of Mammogram Under Debate in Britain Matrix Women's Health 1 03-31-2009 06:12 AM