Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.
/natural news/

The best way to screen for breast cancer is ultrasound. It's the next step after a mammogram picks up something suspicious. It's more accurate and non-invasive.

Why, with the knowledge they have of it, do they still continue to harp on us women to get annual mammograms? Not all doctors do this but it's all they say on TV and in literature. It's dangerous and non productive at best.

Breast screenings are important but if the method of detection is causing the problem why is it allowed to continue to be pushed on us?

Huh, that's good to know. Justification for why I don't take the damn things.
Other than the fact that it feels like someone ran over you with a truck.

And here we are back at our problem with health insurance companies. How many insurance companies will pay for an annual breast MRI?

As much as I question our government, I don't think they would allow us to purposely get cancer from something that is supposed to catch it - not with all of the research on cancer!!!!


Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
New Study Stirs Controversy
Posted: 1:41 pm EDT July 10, 2006
Updated: 1:50 pm EDT July 10, 2006

PITTSBURGH -- An article in the July issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology is causing some controversy among breast cancer experts.

The researchers claim the radiation dose from mammograms may actually cause breast cancer.

The article reports on a study that looked at 1,600 European women with mutations in BRAC1 or BRAC2 genes. That mutation puts women at a much higher risk for developing breast cancer.

The study says these women might want to consider being screened with magnetic resonance imaging instead of X-rays.

Researchers say women in the study who had at least one chest X-ray were 54 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those who never had one.

Some doctors caution that this study looked only at women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, but that group makes up only 10 percent of all women with breast cancer.

90 percent of breast cancer cases have no known cause.

That is why Dr. William Poller of Allegheny General Hospital's Breast Center says women should not panic and should not stop having mammograms.

“The importance of having a mammogram far outweighs any risk from of the radiation,”Poller said. ”In looking at the entire radiation dose to the breast, they compared it to a chest X-ray. They are both very small, so you're talking about relatively small numbers."

In fact, Poller says, you get about the same amount of radiation when you fly cross-country.

This study recommends MRI as a screening method for the women who fall into this small group, but Poller said, “The problem is that MRIs of today still do not pick up all breast cancers. There are still some small changes that only mammography may pick up."

Poller encourages his patients who are considered at high risk for breast cancer to have a mammograms every year and have MRI studies combined with mammograms every other year. He and other breast cancer doctors believe mammograms are still the best way of detecting breast cancer and recent statistics seem to back that up.

“Over the last four years, for the first time, the curve for deaths from breast cancer is going down,”Poller said. ”Why? Better detection and better treatment."

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
And here we are back at our problem with health insurance companies. How many insurance companies will pay for an annual breast MRI?

Even the prez is saying "Get annual mammograms" And any insurance company will pay for it if that's what the doctor prescribes.

And an ultrasound is NOT the same as MRI's

quote:

Originally posted by Persy:
As much as I question our government, I don't think they would allow us to purposely get cancer from something that is supposed to catch it - not with all of the research on cancer!!!!


Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
New Study Stirs Controversy
Posted: 1:41 pm EDT July 10, 2006
Updated: 1:50 pm EDT July 10, 2006

PITTSBURGH -- An article in the July issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology is causing some controversy among breast cancer experts.

The researchers claim the radiation dose from mammograms may actually cause breast cancer.

The article reports on a study that looked at 1,600 European women with mutations in BRAC1 or BRAC2 genes. That mutation puts women at a much higher risk for developing breast cancer.

The study says these women might want to consider being screened with magnetic resonance imaging instead of X-rays.

Researchers say women in the study who had at least one chest X-ray were 54 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those who never had one.

Some doctors caution that this study looked only at women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, but that group makes up only 10 percent of all women with breast cancer.

90 percent of breast cancer cases have no known cause.

That is why Dr. William Poller of Allegheny General Hospital's Breast Center says women should not panic and should not stop having mammograms.

“The importance of having a mammogram far outweighs any risk from of the radiation,”Poller said. ”In looking at the entire radiation dose to the breast, they compared it to a chest X-ray. They are both very small, so you're talking about relatively small numbers."

In fact, Poller says, you get about the same amount of radiation when you fly cross-country.

This study recommends MRI as a screening method for the women who fall into this small group, but Poller said, “The problem is that MRIs of today still do not pick up all breast cancers. There are still some small changes that only mammography may pick up."

Poller encourages his patients who are considered at high risk for breast cancer to have a mammograms every year and have MRI studies combined with mammograms every other year. He and other breast cancer doctors believe mammograms are still the best way of detecting breast cancer and recent statistics seem to back that up.

“Over the last four years, for the first time, the curve for deaths from breast cancer is going down,”Poller said. ”Why? Better detection and better treatment."

None of the studies dispute that the deaths from breast cancer is going down, but the fact still remains that the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer is increasing. And the studies show that there are a lot of cases actually caused by the scan itself.

When I went in for my one and only mammogram, they found 7 lumps. After that they scheduled an ultrasound to look at it more closely. Since the ultrasound is more precise and there's no risk of bringing on cancer from the procedure, why not just skip the mammogram in the first place. It's not all that accurate anyway. A lot of false positive as well as negative readings discovered only after the woman had an ultrasound. And more to the point, would save on insurance.. since the company wouldn't have to pay for TWO tests.

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
And here we are back at our problem with health insurance companies. How many insurance companies will pay for an annual breast MRI?

Even the prez is saying "Get annual mammograms" And any insurance company will pay for it if that's what the doctor prescribes.

And an ultrasound is NOT the same as MRI's

It is the MRI that is suggested as an alternative, not ultrasound.

Insurance companies will pay for what the doctor prescribes? Not in this country...

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
And here we are back at our problem with health insurance companies. How many insurance companies will pay for an annual breast MRI?

Even the prez is saying "Get annual mammograms" And any insurance company will pay for it if that's what the doctor prescribes.

And an ultrasound is NOT the same as MRI's

It is the MRI that is suggested as an alternative, not ultrasound.

Insurance companies will pay for what the doctor prescribes? Not in this country...

I believe I have a little experience in this. I did not receive a MRI.. I received an ultrasound just like when I was pregnant and also to look at my gall bladder before they took it out.

And yes, they will.. at least MINE does.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

I believe I have a little experience in this. I did not receive a MRI.. I received an ultrasound just like when I was pregnant and also to look at my gall bladder before they took it out.

And yes, they will.. at least MINE does.

I too received an ultrasound but, again, it is not the recommended alternative to the annual mammogram.

Insurance companies are in the business of denying coverage and procedures despite what a doctor recommends.

Did you hear about the woman that woke up soaked in her own blood from a bleeding breast? She went to the emergency room, as most of us would, and her insurance company denied her claim.

It's great that you have good insurance, so do I. I have two plans in fact...most don't.

quote:

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent.

That's not what the Doctors are saying. What they're saying is that since mammographic screening was introduced, the diagnosis of DCIS jas increased.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/45/4/244.pdf
(It's a dry read, but the authors are real doctors in the field of Pathology and Oncology at Harvard and Northwestern.)

The reasoning in the quote is dangerous---like saying that DREs have increased the incidence of prostate cancer, when in truth DREs have increased the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Same could be said for screening colonoscopy and many other advances in diagnostic screening procedures.

Ask a doctor--or anyone who's survived cancer--and they'll tell you that early detection gives the single best chance to increase your survival rate and minimize the necessity for ugly things like prolonged chemo and mastectomy.

quote:

Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography.

Two hundred percent? Allegedly? That sort of allegation doesn't appear to have any basis in math, science, or medicine. Sounds more like a plug for a holistic healer who's got it 'all figured out'.

quote:

In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Yes, I suppose that it could...but I prefer my 'health practitioners' to have names and degrees. That's just me--and I'm not slamming alternative medical treatment, but I am slamming quacks who prey on women afraid of what mammography will find, and stoking that fear for profit.

Ask your doctor. Then ask another. And another--an office visit out-of-pocket is money well spent if you have doubts about something this serious.

The point of this thread was not to haggle over insurance or healthcare. It was about mammograms and their dangers and seeking alternatives (which are out there) if at all possible.

quote:

Yes, I suppose that it could...but I prefer my 'health practitioners' to have names and degrees.

For this article:

Dr. Gofinan, Preventing Breast Cancer
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, The Politics Of Cancer
The National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
Russell L. Blaylock, MD,
Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation
Canadian National Breast Cancer Study
The National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Decenting views:

Professor Sandra Steingraber
American Cancer Society (only in that women 40-50 should be screened every 2 years)

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Yes, I suppose that it could...but I prefer my 'health practitioners' to have names and degrees.

For this article:

Dr. Gofinan, Preventing Breast Cancer
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, The Politics Of Cancer
The National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
Russell L. Blaylock, MD,
Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation
Canadian National Breast Cancer Study
The National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Decenting views:

Professor Sandra Steingraber
American Cancer Society (only in that women 40-50 should be screened every 2 years)

Dueling experts is a tough game...

Dr. Gofinan (the author) and Dr. John W Gofman are the same person. All the references I find to a 'Dr. Gofinan' are the same quotes on:
blog.healthfoodemporium.com
naturalnews.com/cancer_screening
naturalnews.com/womens_health
wellsphere.com/articles/breast-mammogram
herbsistah.com/pages/articles_3

Much is based on findings from the mid-1970s when x-ray doses of radiation were much higher (Gofman indicates in the 1995 book you cite that the dose had dropped 30-fold from the 70s to the mid 90s). He made his bones on ...

...the Manahattan Project. He had an epiphany of sorts in 1969 when he and a colleague suggested that federal guidelines for low-level radiation exposure be reduced by 90 percent. The Atomic Energy Commission contested those findings, and Gofman found himself to be a 'reluctant figurehead of the antinuclear movement' (that's from his obituary in the NY Times). He went on to become an expert witness in radiation-exposure lawsuits. He opposed building nuclear power plants, but for some reason didn't have a problem with nuclear missiles.

[strictly my opinion]I'd say he was a hired gun with some credibility, but a narrow focus on low-level radiation and no real interest in studying the benefits of mammography.[/strictly my opinion]

Dr. Epstein's 'The Politics of Cancer' is a 1978 work. He wrote a sequel in 1998 (The Politics of Cancer, Revisited) condemning the NCI and ACS for their 'Unbalanced fixation on damage control--diagnosis and treatment--and molecular biology.' Yeah. Too much time and attention focused on diagnosis and treatment. The foreword to the book is written by...

David Obey, D-WI

Intro is written by...

John Conyers, D-MI

Based on your previous posts here, that should discredit this guy completely.

I'll leave it at that---this is fun, but it's a little time-consuming for me right now.

It's your body, and you should make an informed decision based on the piles and piles of knowledge out there. Many many of us would be dead if it weren't for x-rays, and many more would be dead if cancers weren't discovered early.

If I had ***** (sorry for the zeros--net nanny won't allow the word), I'd be seriously checking up on the folks giving me advice on how to take care of them.

Really.

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Originally posted by SeaWitch1220:
And here we are back at our problem with health insurance companies. How many insurance companies will pay for an annual breast MRI?

Even the prez is saying "Get annual mammograms" And any insurance company will pay for it if that's what the doctor prescribes.

And an ultrasound is NOT the same as MRI's

It is the MRI that is suggested as an alternative, not ultrasound.

Insurance companies will pay for what the doctor prescribes? Not in this country...

quote:

The best way to screen for breast cancer is ultrasound. It's the next step after a mammogram picks up something suspicious. It's more accurate and non-invasive.

from the OP,

As for the rest of your statement- my wife is currently undergoing breast cancer treatment, and we weekly fight with the insurance company over charges, and we always win when we have the doctors referral in hand. You and the rest of the nation can continue to live in denial about the insurance company/healthcare provider relationship, but my family knows the truth and we can tell you that you're routinely wrong with your observations on the subject.

quote:

Why, with the knowledge they have of it, do they still continue to harp on us women to get annual mammograms? Not all doctors do this but it's all they say on TV and in literature. It's dangerous and non productive at best.

Because it's a nice regular income. How much does it cost you per go and how much are the consultant's actual costs? Subtract one from the other and you have your reason why.

Yooper, I really like your reasoning and the way you put things even more (i.e., it's entertaining as well as informative).

If you hadn't brought up the "looking for something seriously means you'll find more of it" phenomenon, I would have. There was a lot less child abuse, statistically, before emergency rooms, physicians' offices and schools were required to report suspected cases. Ditto cervical and prostate cancers before the introduction of their respective screening tests.

Etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Cider33_Alpha:
Yooper, I really like your reasoning and the way you put things even more (i.e., it's entertaining as well as informative).

If you hadn't brought up the "looking for something seriously means you'll find more of it" phenomenon, I would have. There was a lot less child abuse, statistically, before emergency rooms, physicians' offices and schools were required to report suspected cases. Ditto cervical and prostate cancers before the introduction of their respective screening tests.

Etc.

Thanks---funny thing about the child abuse. My mother (in her 70s) has told me that everyone knew about 'funny uncles' and suspicious 'accidents' all those years ago.

It wasn't talked about. It wasn't reported. It wasn't recorded in medical records either.

Doesn't mean it just started happening when folks started talking about it and looking into it.