Re: Mammograms increase Breast Cancer Risk

December 11, 2009

You know, though, that was why I was avoiding mammograms. I figured, why expose

my body to the radiation--how do I know it won't cause cancer?

So I didn't go for my mammos when my doctor started telling me I should. I do

have a family history, but many women diagnosed in their 40s do NOT have a

family history.

I found my own lump. By the time it is palpable, it is usually an invasive

cancer, as mine is, and will require much harsher treatment, and has lower

statistics for survival.

Not to mention, the amount of radiation you are THEN exposed to. If they are so

concerned about the raditiona-cancer link, then why in the world do they drown

you in the stuff after diagnosis? Mammograms galore, x-rays, CT scans, and then

radiation therapy...I have had so many rads thrown at me, when my whole idea in

the first place was to avoid the few I would have gotten from mammograms.

I say, if you and your doctor feel there is good reason for screening, do it.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (though mammos don't actually

prevent it, but you know what I mean).

~J

December 11, 2009

I'm right there with you, Janine.

Age 42, early stage breast cancer. I had been avoiding mammos as well. I only

had one because my mother had just died from some sort of other cancer. Quite

frankly, I was happy to be diagnosed at stage 0.

ar

>

> You know, though, that was why I was avoiding mammograms. I figured, why

expose my body to the radiation--how do I know it won't cause cancer?

>

> So I didn't go for my mammos when my doctor started telling me I should. I do

have a family history, but many women diagnosed in their 40s do NOT have a

family history.

>

> I found my own lump. By the time it is palpable, it is usually an invasive

cancer, as mine is, and will require much harsher treatment, and has lower

statistics for survival.

>

> Not to mention, the amount of radiation you are THEN exposed to. If they are

so concerned about the raditiona-cancer link, then why in the world do they

drown you in the stuff after diagnosis? Mammograms galore, x-rays, CT scans,

and then radiation therapy...I have had so many rads thrown at me, when my whole

idea in the first place was to avoid the few I would have gotten from

mammograms.

>

> I say, if you and your doctor feel there is good reason for screening, do it.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (though mammos don't actually

prevent it, but you know what I mean).

>

> ~J

>

December 11, 2009

That's the best stage to catch it in. Congratulations!

~J

> >

> > You know, though, that was why I was avoiding mammograms. I figured, why

expose my body to the radiation--how do I know it won't cause cancer?

> >

> > So I didn't go for my mammos when my doctor started telling me I should. I

do have a family history, but many women diagnosed in their 40s do NOT have a

family history.

> >

> > I found my own lump. By the time it is palpable, it is usually an invasive

cancer, as mine is, and will require much harsher treatment, and has lower

statistics for survival.

> >

> > Not to mention, the amount of radiation you are THEN exposed to. If they

are so concerned about the raditiona-cancer link, then why in the world do they

drown you in the stuff after diagnosis? Mammograms galore, x-rays, CT scans,

and then radiation therapy...I have had so many rads thrown at me, when my whole

idea in the first place was to avoid the few I would have gotten from

mammograms.

> >

> > I say, if you and your doctor feel there is good reason for screening, do

it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (though mammos don't

actually prevent it, but you know what I mean).

> >

> > ~J

> >

>

December 11, 2009

Actually, Joe, once the lump is there, and can be felt, it is pretty much always

invasive. Non-invasive cancer, DCIS, tends to have no lump. That is why I am

glad to have had a mammo pick it up BEFORE it became invasive. And yes, I'm

fairly positive my DCIS would have become invasive very soon. (But we've

discussed this before).

Many of the fast growing cancers are missed by mammos because we only have them

once a year. If we had them more often, then more of those cancers would be

caught. (Now there's a weird cycle of " what came first, the chicken or the

egg " )

Every decision we make for ourselves is the right decision - because there is no

other decision. There should be no regrets in cancer treatment.

The problem with the new mammo guidelines is that it ignores the women like me -

women in their 40s who did not have numerous numbers of mammograms. Younger

women have more aggressive cancers that are found at a later stage, for numerous

reasons. So, for those of us between the ages of 40 and 49, this is very

personal and emotional. The new guidelines basically say that we aren't worth

saving. I don't think we are arguing about the advantages to the older

population. We are talking about us, me, and my friends who are dying with

their young children at their bedside watching.

Part of dealing with cancer can be the part where you do something about it.

Whether or not we are destined to die from it, or can be put into a life-long

remission, depends on many factors. But don't take away my right to TRY to do

something about it. And that's what these new guidelines are saying to us

40-something women. And telling people that their cancers might have gone away

without treatment is really a huge waste of time. Because there is just as much

chance that the opposite is true and that the fact that I treated it early,

saved my life. So, I am grateful I had my mammo when I did, and I have no

regrets that I chose lumpectomy and radiation for treatment. Just as I have no

qualms about the fact that I turned down tamoxifen and am using calcium

d-glucarate instead.

And really, as I've said multiple times, telling women that their only known

choice in scanning is wrong is hurtful to many of us. The new guidelines did

nothing to help us find another solution. And THAT is the real problem. Why

isn't there more info on thermography. Why don't we concentrate on getting that

information out there instead of posting yet again and again about how bad

mammograms are. (I'm not talking about you - just commenting on the tiresome

negative garbage I find in this group).

And by the way, I know many women who would trade anything to get those extra

two years with their children. So, though survival of only two additional years

means nothing to some people, I know many women who would be very happy to have

seen their children graduate from grade school or high school. Alas, they are

gone now.

ar

December 11, 2009

>

> That's the best stage to catch it in. Congratulations!

>

> ~J

Thank you. I have tried to not lose sight of how lucky I was.

ar

December 12, 2009

Joe,

I don't know how many times you are going to insist on putting me in a position

where I have to tell you, again, that your information about DCIS in YOUNG women

is wrong.

Breast cancer is different between pre and post menopausal women.

For us younger women, there is quite a bit of evidence that invasive ductal

carcinoma sprouted from DCIS. The evidence is there because you can SEE where

the invasion hapened. I am not an expert on your cancer, but are not an expert

on mine, either. I know my DCIS would have become invasive because you could

see the evidence in the pathology. There are a few different kinds of DCIS. If

I were 65 or older, then I would say you were right. But my experience is very

different from what you are saying - and I really need you to stop saying it.

It is true that science can't tell which type of DCIS will become invasive. But

there are some that are just as easy to spot. My pathology pretty much says it

all. It is true that doctors treat all DCIS the same. But as I have said

before - I would rather treat my DCIS before it became invasive than after.

And you have yet again ignored the fact that I am talking about women age 40 to

49. I'm uniquely able to talk about this because I AM a woman age 40 to 49

diagnosed with early stage cancer. I am the woman who is directly affected by

the new guidelines.

And I stand by everything I said.

I'm not arguing that mammos dn't have problems. I'm arguing that there really

isn't anything else for us within that category. How nice that I had treatment

options. I would not have under the new guidelines.

Stop treating me as if I had post-menopausal cancer. I did not. I would think

your experience with your daughter-in-law would have enlightened you to the

problems we younger women have.

Oh, and I know you don't like people talking about conventional treatment here.

But there are 3,000 members and only a handful of people who ever post. So, I

think any discussion is a good discussion. People coming here to discuss CAM

are just as welcome. Of course, since I came here because of a mammogram which

lead to diagnosis, perhaps I'm the one that should leave.

ar

>

> If more mammograms would discover more cancers, then perhaps they should be

had monthly?

>

> There is no evidence but a belief system, in place, that a particular DCIS

would turn into cancer, in fact, there is more evidence it is not the problem

they once thought it was.

>

> We have the right to drink and smoke too. Nobody is taking anyone's right

away or even suggesting a right be taken away. That is nothing more than

propaganda to assault Health-Care Reform. They jumped from the 'Pulling the

Plug on Grandma to Taking away a woman's right to have a Mammogram. Beliefs,

whether in religion or health-care, one of the strongest religions in the world

often speak to issues with little evidence.........look at the fervor being

generated by this subject and by people like us.............people that spout

their beliefs with little evidence beyond a 'feeling' or a 'suspicion' which I

guess is the same thing.

>

> I am sorry to dispute your entire thought that this is 'taking away' a right

you claim you have. Show me where that is? Perhaps, if the people pushing

mammograms, chemotherapy, surgery, perhaps if 'they' wanted an alternative,

there would be one. Do not blame those offering their evidence regarding the

benefits or lack thereof of mammogram screening for not pushing some

alternative. That's the Conventional system and the power of a corrupt system

that kill more people than they save. If we did not believe this to be true,

there would be no Cancer-cured list.

>

> There is no evidence, and I'll repeat that, that any particular treatment any

of us have had, is the reason we are here today. What would you have had my

daughter-in-law do? Get a mammogram every two weeks? Wasn't the once enough

and the doctor's exam enough so that a fast growing cancer could be detected or

do we simply say, " that was just an unusual case " . The facts are in, this

isn't an unusual case..........mammograms tend to miss the more serous cancers

and mammograms also lead to heroic and unnecessary treatments for millions of

women. Millions, not just a few.

>

> Every decision we make is not the right decision. It is simply a decision

.......but it is a right that one can make themselves..........sometimes. I say

sometimes because Conventional Medicine can force you to be treated or have your

children be treated and sometimes you cannot stop them.

>

> Anyone wanting a mammogram has the right to have one and if they have one,

that is their business. By the same token, this is an Alternative Cancer list

and while there is freedom of speech there is also freedom to dispute statements

that are over-reaching such as, once a lump is found, it is probably invasive

or, that DCIS will become full-blown cancer. That is not backed up by

evidence. On the contrary, the thinking about DCIS has come to be very

different from what it was just 10 years ago.

>

> It is no different from Heart-by-pass surgery. How many people that have had

it believe their lives were saved as a result of that surgery? An entire

section of Cardiology believes that most of the surgeries could have been

avoided and people treated medically and that the life-span of people undergoing

the surgery is no better than those not having it.

>

> I'll give you another one. The 'Filter' people have inserted in their groins

when a blood clot is found because of the inactivity/trauma they suffered. A

big study now finds that there is no measurable benefit because of this

procedure. However, tell that to someone that had it inserted.

>

> I wouldn't dare tell a person that believes their life was saved by

chemotherapy or radiation that it wasn't. I could not prove it wasn't so why

would I? However, they cannot prove it was. It's a belief, nothing more.

>

> I am particularly concerned when statements are made regarding " rights being

taken away " or " treatments to the elderly being denied " because I am very

involved with the need for health-care-reform. I am an insurance professional

and it is my opinion that the propaganda machine needs to be countered. People

are being spoon-fed nonsense about rights and treatments being taken away when

it is the Insurance Industry that is denying coverage and is the cause of high

premiums. We need to stop buying into sensational statements like " pulling the

plug " or " taking away my rights " . Too many on this list do not even have

insurance and still they argue the insurance industry talking points.

>

> There are enough lists available for people that want to pursue conventional

practices without this list turning into one of them. People join this list,

sometimes not realizing it is an Alternative oriented list while others are well

aware of it. I do not need to belong to a list to hear about conventional

practices on a regular basis because all I need to do is go to my regular

physician for that. Any women can go to any Gynecologist or Oncologist and get

The Full Works without any help from this list.

>

> The subject line is correct, the evidence is clear and it comes from the very

profession that started it in the first place. To deny the subject line is

foolhardy. To deny there are variables? Just as fool-hardy. Mammograms done

routinely, the way currently done, do more harm than good. This does not mean

the person that 'falls into the 'good' should be sorry she had one, it is simply

looking at the entire picture and people right now, defending screening, are

not, not taking into consideration the many thousands that are going to develop

cancer that would not have but for the excessive radiation received over a

lifetime. Do not forget the dental or other X-rays exposed to over the years.

>

> Joe C.

>

December 12, 2009

My wife's bc also wasn't detected by a mammogram. The doctor noticed something

about 6 years ago in a physical examination and ordered a mammogram which showed

up nothing. 6 years later there is a big lump after finishing breast feeding

which turns out to be triple negative.

I wish back then I knew what I know now about tumor markers, and I would have

been getting those done every 1 year or more often even, after the first

suspicion.

So from what I've seen, I think there is a very good alternative to mammograms

and visual screening. It's a Tumor Marker Combination Assay. Combining multiple

tumor markers mathematically with a multivariate analysis formula, to achieve a

sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 84.5%. Using those results they can

classify someone into pre-detection stages, well before it can be visually

detected.

So there's a very good chance that if multiple markers are checked regularly

(yearly or more or less often, depending on the first results), it is likely to

detected an abnormality well before they can even find it on a mammogram or

other screening device. At this true early stage we can implement real cancer

prevention measures.

It's too bad most doctors dismiss this type of tumor marker system without even

investigating it, and hang onto their preconception, that tumor markers can't be

used for early detection. Nonsense!!

If you did a Tumor Marker Combination Assay, it would probably be able to tell

you if your DCIS were really invasive or benign. Did they check any markers

straight away to see if they were abnormal? I believe just looking at a

mammogram to decide if something in it is cancer is often just " guessing " . Two

different radiologists can come to different conclusions. I think the whole

business is all too unscientific and it must change!

When my wife had the Tumor Marker Combination Assay done after she found the

lump, he checked 25 tumor markers as well as immune activity (T cells, NK cells,

etc) and another 50+ other general things such as WBC, RBC, Na, Cl, K, Ca, Fe,

CRP, vitamin A etc etc. This test is a goldmine of information about a persons

health! But the doctor has to be able to understand the information that's there

which most doctors would lack, unless they got trained how to use this system

first.

>

> It is true that science can't tell which type of DCIS will become invasive.

But there are some that are just as easy to spot. My pathology pretty much says

it all. It is true that doctors treat all DCIS the same. But as I have said

before - I would rather treat my DCIS before it became invasive than after.

>

> I'm not arguing that mammos dn't have problems. I'm arguing that there really

isn't anything else for us within that category.

December 12, 2009

Amen, again, Ar. I clipped your post for length, but you are right on, and

don't even think about leaving.

I made some very hard decisions during my treatment, that tore me apart inside.

I was not a bit happy about the conventional treatment options, but scared out

of my wits at the same time. I prayed hard and cried hard and fought hard, and

I did a LOT of research along the way, talked to (and still do) a LOT of other

women in this journey, other doctors and experts, and while what we have right

now is not all that great for detecting what kind of cancer (or DCIS, LCIS, or

IBC, or other displasias, etc) a woman has, at least we do have a track record

of early detection that leads to LESS invasive and horrific treatments. I am

all for any woman having a false positive and dealing with that, than going

through what I did.

What these new guidelines are saying is not to try to catch breast cancer early,

when it can be cured with more ease, when the woman now has fair warning how her

body is out of whack and can start to look into healthier choices, but wait

until a lump of invasive cancer shows up. This is like handing a woman a ticket

on the worst roller coaster ride of her life, and telling her as she's boarding

that she may never get off until she dies.

In my online breast cancer support group, we keep losing members. They are not

mad and so they leave, they are not cured and going on with their lives, they

are dead. Their cancer wasn't caught until it was already on the move. Except

for one member, who died because of a secondary cancer CAUSED by her

chemotherapy. She would not have been on chemo if her cancer had been caught

early.

Maybe if women all sought alternative treatments, we would see better survival

rates, and better health and quality of life in the process. That would be

great. But the reality is that most women are going to be talked into the

conventional route, as I was (not only by conventional, but also naturopathic,

doctors). The conventional route is devastating. I am still out of work almost

two years since treatment ended. Body and mind are still recovering, and I may

never be all back...this " new normal " is hard to get used to.

I may never be the same again. I am a very easy mark, now, for those who like

to spout off and run over me, so there isn't much I can do about that. Chemo

has caused changes in my ability to express, but not my ability to understand,

what I am talking about.

And if women are now being told to go ahead and wait until they have invasive

cancer, bc then doctors can be sure of their condition, and after all we have

chemo and radiation...I don't see why someone on an alternative site would be

for that. It mystifies me. I have been there, done that, and early detection

is just plain better.

~J

December 12, 2009

>

> What does this mean? " If they are so concerned about the radiation-cancer

link, then why in the world do they drown you in the stuff after diagnosis? "

>

> Who is the 'they' in both of these instances? Some of 'them' would not

irradiate every woman and the others would radiate every woman. The above

statement does not give credibility towards justification for having mammograms

Joe, it wasn't meant to. I was just saying how scary this is. Those conducting

this study felt so strongly that a mammogram a year for the ten years before 50

is so strongly associated with causing cancer that they changed recommendations.

The amount of radiation medical science will flood you will after diagnosis is

off the charts! Yet, they would rather see women get invasive cancer and be

exposed to those doses than to risk the comparitively minute dosages of

mammograms?

Radiation is one of those things they can use for, or against, whatever they

want to push on you. With each dose I got, I was told how necesary it was, and

how the current benefits outweighed the future risks. It didn't matter what

they wanted it for, or how many shots they had to take of whatever they were

looking at, if they wanted to use radiation, they just went for it, carte

blanche and told me not to worry about it.

It can't be both ways. Either radiation is dangerous, or the concnerns are

minimal. Which one is it? If it is dangerous, then my point was, why do they

want to raise the risk that more women will be exposed to great amounts of it by

stopping early screenings?

I don't care if it's mammograms, or thermal imaging, or ultrasounds, or ductal

lavage, or whatever else they come up with--women must be screened, because

breast cancer is bad, and early detection is crucial.

Once she knows she has cancer, a woman can seek a cure through whatever methods

she feels comfortable with. I hope and pray we can get to a place where we know

what works, and what works is kind, gentle, and natural. I am here to learn

more about that side of cancer treatment.

~J

December 12, 2009

I am not going to get into this debate because my lump was found during an exam

and not a mamo. That just confirmed it.

But I was only 38 when dx'd with invasive DCIS No history of breast cancer in my

family. Just used BC for about 15 years on and off mostly on.

Cheri

>

> Actually, Joe, once the lump is there, and can be felt, it is pretty much

always invasive. Non-invasive cancer, DCIS, tends to have no lump. That is why

I am glad to have had a mammo pick it up BEFORE it became invasive. And yes,

I'm fairly positive my DCIS would have become invasive very soon. (But we've

discussed this before).

>

> Many of the fast growing cancers are missed by mammos because we only have

them once a year. If we had them more often, then more of those cancers would

be caught. (Now there's a weird cycle of " what came first, the chicken or the

egg " )

>

> Every decision we make for ourselves is the right decision - because there is

no other decision. There should be no regrets in cancer treatment.

>

> The problem with the new mammo guidelines is that it ignores the women like me

- women in their 40s who did not have numerous numbers of mammograms. Younger

women have more aggressive cancers that are found at a later stage, for numerous

reasons. So, for those of us between the ages of 40 and 49, this is very

personal and emotional. The new guidelines basically say that we aren't worth

saving. I don't think we are arguing about the advantages to the older

population. We are talking about us, me, and my friends who are dying with

their young children at their bedside watching.

>

> Part of dealing with cancer can be the part where you do something about it.