Re: Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal Naturally

[Guest guest]

Here is some very interesting information about health and screening x rays.

There was an original study done by Dr. Gofman a pioneer in the medical

radiation business.

His study came to some very interesting conclusions.

http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/

Hi,

I am dead set against mammograms and am familiar with cancers healing

naturally but have not seen or heard any specific evidence that cancer rates

have increased after mammograms.

In a message dated 11/26/08 5:33:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

rhythmicliving writes:

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal

Naturally

Monday, November 24, 2008 by: Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's

Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303)

reaches a startling conclusion.

Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after

women there began getting mammograms every two years. .........READ MORE.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

************** Finally, one site has it all: your friends, your email, your

favorite sites. Try the NEW AOL.com.

(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp & icid=aolcom40vanity & ncid=emlcntaolcom00000

006)

[Guest guest]

Part 4 o Breast Cancer: X-Ray Screening (http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/XHP/MPDaXrayST.html)

o Most readers will be aware of the raging debate, in professional and mass media, over whether mammography does more good than harm (e.g., in The Lancet, Jan. 8, 2000 + Oct. 20, 2001 + Feb. 2, 2002 + Mar. 16, 2002 + New York Times, Dec. 9, 2001 + Apr. 9, 2002 + AARP Bulletin, Apr. 2002).

o We think the existing evidence is not solid about the probability of any personal benefit. And probability is the key issue, when an individual tries to weigh the chance of personal benefit versus personal harm. The probabilities related to harms are not solid, either. Estimates vary.

The Probability of Radiation Harm

o Using the assumptions that the mean glandular dose to the breast per 2-view exam is 0.2 rad (0.2 centi-gray or cGy), that a woman starting at age 50 accumulates 15 mammograms, and that 3.7 is the incidence to mortality ratio, we estimated that the likelihood of a fatal mammogram-induced breast-cancer is roughly 1 chance in 500 (Gofman 1996: pp.180-81 for incidence, adjusted for fatality, pp.279-80).

o But the upper limit of " permissible " dose per exam has been 0.6 rad. For individuals receiving 0.6 rad per exam, the dose and the risks would be three-fold higher. And the risks would also be variably higher for women who (unknown to them) have inherited certain genetic mutations (e.g., in the AT gene or in other DNA) which make x-ray-induced damage less likely to be correctly repaired.

o Even so, it is reasonable to think that, from annual screening, your chance of not developing a mammogram-induced fatal breast cancer greatly exceeds the chance that you will.

The Probability of False-Positives

o The radiation risk is just one consideration. There are others. There is the harm of false-positive results from the screening. False-positives are results which suggest the possibility of disease in a person for whom the possibility is not confirmed by repeated or other tests --- or by subsequent diagnosis of clinical disease.

o How likely are false-positive mammograms in the USA? In 1998, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study, based on the HMO records of 4,319 women who received mammograms between 1983 and 1993 (Elmore 1998). The resulting estimates are (p.1092): For women having mammographies at age 50 or older, the cumulative risk of false-positives after five screening mammograms is 24%, and after ten exams, 47%. For younger women (age 40-49), the risks are, respectively, 30% and 56%. Such studies have stimulated progress on computer-assisted interpretation of mammograms, aimed at reducing such very high rates.

o The findings above were supported by a separate study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Christiansen 2000). This study looked additionally at how the false-positive rate varied with the number of breast-cancer risk factors a woman has. " By the ninth mammogram, the risk [of a false-positive result] can be as low as 5% for women with low-risk variables and as high as 100% for women with multiple high-risk factors. "

o The harm from false-positives is not limited to anxiety. The harms can include unnecessary additional exposure to x-rays at higher doses. And biopsies. Indeed, some percutaneous biopsies are guided by additional x-rays.

The Probability of Unnecessary Treatment

o More worrisome than a false-positive, whose result is corrected later, is an " overdiagnosis " --- followed by harmful treatment (surgery, radiation therapy, and or chemotherapy) for a non-cancer.

o No one knows how much overdiagnosis occurs as a result of mammography. The issue concerns Dr. Barnett Kramer, director of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who has studied the numbers from 1983 to 1998. His conclusion is described by Ms. Kolata (2002, p.D5) as follows:

o If screening worked perfectly, every breast cancer found early " would correspond to one fewer cancer found later. That, he said, did not happen. Mammography, instead, has resulted in a huge new population of women with early stage cancer but without a corresponding decline in the numbers of women with advanced cancer. "

o Perhaps future evidence will be able to settle the question: Does the USA recently have a large increase in the number of genuine breast cancers --- detected and successfully treated, or do we have a large number of non-cancers which are mistakenly identified as cancers and treated " successfully " ? What is more likely?

o The external pressure on women to have periodic mammograms has been intense. But considering the uncertainty that mammograms will deliver more personal benefit than harm, " Rational women can make the decision not to have a mammogram, and no one should castigate them for doing that, " says , M.D., of the University of North Carolina Medical School and member of a National Cancer Institute advisory board (in Greider 2002, p.15).

Hi,

I am dead set against mammograms and am familiar with cancers healing naturally but have not seen or heard any specific evidence that cancer rates have increased after mammograms.

In a message dated 11/26/08 5:33:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, rhythmicliving writes:

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal Naturally

Monday, November 24, 2008 by: Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion.

Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. .........READ MORE.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

**************

Finally, one site has it all: your friends, your email, your favorite sites. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp & icid=aolcom40vanity & ncid=emlcntaolcom00000006)