Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The More Mammograms You Get The More Harm They Do

Posted by   + Show Post

www.wakingtimes.com/2013/02/08/confirmed...e-more-harm-they-do/

Confirmed: The More Mammograms You Get The More Harm They Do

Mammograms are in the news again, and it doesn’t look good for those who continue to advocate using them to “detect cancer early” in asymptomatic populations. The science increasingly runs directly counter to the screening guidelines produced by both governmental and nongovernmental health organizations claiming to be advocates for women’s health.

Remember that only last November, the New England Journal of Medicine published a shocking analysis of the past 30 years of breast screening in the US, finding that 1.3 million women were overdiagnosed and overtreated for breast cancer – euphemisms for misdiagnosed and mistreated.1

This finding, released cunningly from scientific embargo to the media on the eve of Thanksgiving, was so devastating in its implications that many either did not understand its meaning, or could not bear to accept the truth that the quarter of a century clarion call of breast cancer awareness month – get your annual mammogram or lose your life! – caused more unnecessary suffering, pain and harm to women than it is possible to calculate. The only calculable dimension of this world-historical failure is the billions of dollars that were made in the process of converting healthy, asymptomatic women into “patients”, and if fortunate enough to make it through treatment, “survivors”.

Now, a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, finds that those women who follow the American Cancer Society’s guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer, namely, annual screening for women 40 or older, are not only receiving no additional protection against aggressive breast cancer, but are experiencing greater harm through increased rates of false positives and unnecessary biopsies.

continue reading

by on Feb. 9, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Replies (11-18):
DayDreamer1201
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM

If my grandma hadn't had her mammogram, her cancer would have gone undetected. I thank God for the mammogram that saved her life. I will be getting mine squished too! 

Arroree
by Ruby Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 8:52 PM


This. Fibrocystic breasts run in my family rather badly, to the point that one of my cousins had both of her breasts completely gutted and reconstruction done because of how bad the cysts became. I might end up having to do the same thing since my breast tissue is more cystic than regular anymore and it gets to be torture before my monthly.

It's suggested for me and many of my female relatives, because of how bad our breast tissue is due to this condition, that we actually get a mammogram and full testing done every 6 months to insure that none of the cysts have become cancerous.

Quoting desertlvn:

My Grandmother had breast cancer and needed a double radical mastectomy. My mom has abnormal breast cells and with every mamogram is flagged for a biopsy. She has never had cancer though. At 31 I found a lump and a mamogram was ordered. A subsequent biopsy was ordered. No cancer, simply fibrocystic breasts. I am in the tough position of having a family history of breast cancer, but also cystic breasts which make detecting cancer hard. 

Honestly, I'd rather be safe than sorry. 



unspecified42
by Bronze Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Same is true of skin cancers. I thought current guidelines had changed, though? 

It's about the happen with PAP smears, too. 

unspecified42
by Bronze Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 9:06 PM

? The asymptomatic population would be those women who have them routinely but don't have a reason to think they have cancer, like a lump in their breast. A detected abnormality isn't the same thing as a symptom, so no, you wouldn't suddenly become symptomatic after detection of cancer unless the cancer had advanced enough to make it so. 

It's actually a significantly meaningful sentence because it specifies that we're talking about women who DON'T have symptoms, not women who have detected a lump in their breast and need a mammogram for further assessment.

Quoting EireLass:

That first sentence is ridiculous. Most things are found in the 'asymptomatic population'.....after its found is when they are in the symptomatic population.



Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Feb. 10, 2013 at 9:14 PM

 bump

EireLass
by Ruby Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 11:37 AM

You are under the assumption that you must have a lump you can feel prior to having cancer.

Quoting unspecified42:

? The asymptomatic population would be those women who have them routinely but don't have a reason to think they have cancer, like a lump in their breast. A detected abnormality isn't the same thing as a symptom, so no, you wouldn't suddenly become symptomatic after detection of cancer unless the cancer had advanced enough to make it so. 

It's actually a significantly meaningful sentence because it specifies that we're talking about women who DON'T have symptoms, not women who have detected a lump in their breast and need a mammogram for further assessment.

Quoting EireLass:

That first sentence is ridiculous. Most things are found in the 'asymptomatic population'.....after its found is when they are in the symptomatic population.

unspecified42
by Bronze Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM
Umm...no, I'm not. I'm saying that would be a symptom. Not all cancers are symptomatic, though.


Quoting EireLass:

You are under the assumption that you must have a lump you can feel prior to having cancer.

Quoting unspecified42:

? The asymptomatic population would be those women who have them routinely but don't have a reason to think they have cancer, like a lump in their breast. A detected abnormality isn't the same thing as a symptom, so no, you wouldn't suddenly become symptomatic after detection of cancer unless the cancer had advanced enough to make it so. 

It's actually a significantly meaningful sentence because it specifies that we're talking about women who DON'T have symptoms, not women who have detected a lump in their breast and need a mammogram for further assessment.


Quoting EireLass:

That first sentence is ridiculous. Most things are found in the 'asymptomatic population'.....after its found is when they are in the symptomatic population.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
MeAndTommyLee
by Gold Member on Feb. 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Never had one, doubt I ever will.  I understand the concern of women that have a family history to consider, though. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)