Women have been conditioned to get yearly mammograms. They have been told by the Powers-That-Be that screening mammograms save lives. So, let me ask the question: Do women who get screening mammograms have a lowered breast cancer mortality rate when compared to women not screened?
Canadian researchers attempted to answer this question and published a study in last week’s British Medical Journal (BMJ. Feb 11, 2014). Researchers enrolled 89,305 Canadian women aged 40-59 and randomly assigned them to a treatment group who received annual mammography and compared them to a control group who did not undergo mammography. The main outcome studied was death from breast cancer.
During the entire study period (25 years) 3250 women in the mammography arm and 3133 in the control arm were diagnosed with breast cancer. 500 women in the mammography arm and 505 in the control arm died from breast cancer. There was no significant change in the death rate between the women who received and those who did not receive annual mammograms.
The author’s concluded, “Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 years does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care…”
Mammograms provide a radiological image of the breasts. The Powers-That-Be want us to believe that early diagnosis translates into improved mortality rates. Unfortunately, after more than 30 years and hundreds of thousands of mammographic studies, there is no clear data that mammograms save lives.
There is no question that mammograms pick up abnormalities in the breasts at a much earlier stage as compared to the physical exam–palpation of the breast. However, as the Canadian studies showed, early diagnosis of breast cancer has not translated into improved mortality rates. A similar situation occurs in men with prostate testing via the PSA test–early diagnosis does not change the course of the illness for the vast majority men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Keep in mind that mammograms are associated with adverse effects. Mammograms utilize ionizing radiation which is a known to cause cancer. In fact, there is a one percent increase risk of developing breast cancer for each mammogram a woman receives. That means, after 10 years, the risk could be as high as ten percent. Some think the risk is higher.
What should you do? Don’t blindly follow anyone’s recommendation, mine included. Do your research. Just because a doctor says that a yearly mammogram is needed doesn’t make it so. Thermography provides a non-toxic way to image the breast using heat. Since it does not expose the breast tissue to ionizing radiation, thermography should be an option. More information about thermography can be found at: www.thermascan.com.
Final thoughts: The war on breast cancer has been a dismal failure. Presently, we have one in seven U.S. women suffering with breast cancer. The best that the Powers-That-Be can offer us, after spending trillions of our scarce health care dollars, is the screening mammogram– which has never been shown to lower mortality rates. I say we need to refocus our efforts. We need to spend our money figuring out what is causing one in seven women to have breast breast cancer. We need less money spent on diagnosing cancer and more spent on how to prevent it. What can you do? Make your views known. Congress will listen to us if we speak loudly enough. And, finally, don’t donate to organizations that are not trying to figure out why so many of us are getting cancer. These same organizations are busy, in the case of breast cancer, promoting screening mammograms.
What steps can you take to prevent becoming a breast cancer statistic? The number one thing is to eat a healthy diet free of hormones and pesticides. Both synthetic hormones and pesticides have been linked to cancer. Also, ensure that you have adequate iodine intake as I believe low iodine levels could explain why so many women are suffering from breast cancer as well as why so many men are suffering from prostate cancer. More information about this can be found in my book, Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, 5th Edition.
In the study of breast cancer, we can and should do better. Either we make changes in how our cancer dollars are spent or we will all continue to suffer with more and more cancer diagnoses.
DrB
Don’t publish this, but THANK YOU for replying to my question on the thermography! I knew there was probably a spin.
Right now, I am in between a “screening” mammogram (done 5 days ago) and the dreaded “call back diagnostic mammogram” which is scheduled for April 17th. Ugh. Every time I’ve had them done (twice now) they always need to re-do the whole process. How much extra x-ray exposure is that?!? Yes, I will get together with you in the next year to do it different next time.
On a positive note, when I read the signs and symptoms of thyroid problems I HAVE NONE OF THEM!!!! Wow. I used to have all of them. We are doing great, and I value you!!!!
Alicia is off to Cleveland Institute of Music for vocal performance this next September! 1,000 auditioned for 5 spots! Yay! I will get her in to see you before she goes off to college. Time flies doesn’t it?
Miss seeing you, but we are all well! I’ll keep reading your blog. Thanks for doing it.
Warmly,
Diana
What would really be interesting would be to find out whether prostate & breast cancer treatments based on “early detection” are associated with an increased risk of death from all other causes, as surgery, radiation and chemo wreak havoc with the immune system and are known cancer risk factors. (surgery included, as scar tissue is a more common cancer site than normal tissue) Tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug, is actually listed in the Merck manual as a risk factor for breast cancer. Its manufacturer sponsors one of the main “pink” charities.
Cancer treatments are never listed as a cause of death. They just say the patients “succumbed to cancer.” But did they just succumb to these toxic, invasive treatments instead? (Or their long-term consequences)
If we could answer that question, we’d know the true cost of mammogram & PSA testing. I suspect that early detection really means scaring people with test results of “abnormal cells” enough so they’ll acquiesce to any & all treatments to save their lives.
Reply to Deliah:
There are a number of research studies that found early detection of breast cancer by mammography increases the use of invasive treatments, contrary to what the mammogram industry tells women (discussed in “The Mammogram Myth” by Rolf Hefti). Remember they’ve been also telling the public for decades that mammography significantly reduces mortality from breast cancer…
“…early diagnosis of breast cancer has not translated into improved mortality rates. ”
Even if early diagnosis of breast cancer hasn’t translated into improved mortality rates, it can and does translate into saving women from the devastating effects of treatment for breast cancer diagnosed late.
Delilah,
Don’t forget that this same study reported, “Overall, 22% of screen detected invasive breast cancers were overdiagnosed.” This means that the mammogram picked up a cancer that would, most likely, not have killed the patient–she would have died from other causes. You can bet that these overdiagnosed patients suffered from disfiguring surgeries and toxic chemotherapy therapies.
Follow an organic vegan diet if you wish to avoid all the hormones, pesticides, herbicides and medications that are consumed when eating meat, fish, poultry and dairy.
This organization has been working on these very things for many, many years.
Breast Cancer Action | 55 New Montgomery St. #323 | San Francisco, CA 94105
Toll-free at 877-2STOPBC (278-6722) | http://www.bcaction.org | http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org
My wife takes iodine and Vit D3. Her lumpy breast which would sometimes hurt, have become much smoother and she no longer complains of pain. No guarantee she won’t get cancer, but no doubt the combination of these two items made a big difference.
Another major source of carcinogen exposure is hormone based birth control. There are so many women on the pill that our water supplies are polluted with significant levels of estrogen, which is considered a class 1 carcinogen in Europe. For reference, asbestos is also a class 1 carcinogen.
In addition to the dangers posed by mammograms, women need to be made aware of how drinking milk and eating other dairy products – all dairy, even goat or sheep – stimulates the growth of breast and prostate cancers. British scientist, Jane Plant, discovered this when her breast cancer came back five times while she was having all the standard treatments. The fifth time she found and began measuring a lump that came only 10 days after her latest surgery and was growing daily. Her doctors gave her two months and had her on chemo, hoping it would add a bit more time.
She realized, while studying a map of cancers in China, that only one woman in 100,000 got breast cancer, while here it is now one in seven! She also realized that Asian women don’t eat any dairy unless they have adopted a western diet. And, when they do, their breast cancer rates grow to become the same as the country they are living in. There followed a lot of research of peer reviewed literature to confirm her realizations. She stopped all dairy and her lump softened within a week and was totally gone in five weeks. She encourages other healthy dietary and other habits, but the key to her success, and that of many women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer, is removing all dairy fro their diets.
After being cancer free for several years, Ms Plant became a bit lax, her cancer returned, and she then got back on the diet she had developed – and got well again. It has been close to 20 years now and she remains healthy. Yet few women in America have heard of her or of the dangers of dairy products – even if they are organic – to their diets.
Excellent article. One criticism however – Congress will not listen. You can look at the FDA’s endorsement of drugs that kill at least over 106,000 people every year without consequence. A better bet is to not look at Congress and to become self reliant and consider honest research such as yours.
James,
Criticism well taken.
DrB
Hi, Dr. B! Can you respond to the May 2012 findings for the American Society of Breast Surgeons study regarding effectiveness of thermography in detecting breast cancer? I know these studies are not always objective and I would like your input on their somewhat dismal reporting. Thank you!
From their website:
Infrared Thermography Not a Useful Breast Cancer Screening Tool
Mammography Remains the Gold Standard
Abstract #92
PDF version
MS-Word
Diana,
I called Phil Hoekstra who is one of the leaders in thermography. Here is his comments:
“The NTBS (Thermography device)is a first-generation automated breast thermography device and the results of this study were poor with only about a 50% sensitivity and a 37% specificity. Please notice that this study was limited to this novel and proprietary automated imaging and analysis device but the ‘spin’ on the results were unfairly portrayed as a sweeping condemnation of breast thermography. Personally, I wasn’t surprised by the results given what I perceive as the poor imaging methodology and analytic system. It should also be noted that the ‘gold standard’, mammography, has a sensitivity below 50% for premenopausal women and a specificity of 17% for all women. Our own internal study on two groups of one thousand women (one with TH-1 and TH-2 and the other with TH-4 and TH-5) that were classified by a single thermology study alone and followed for six to seven years demonstrated a 95% sensitivity and a 91% specificity based upon biopsy results.”
Interesting to note the way this study is being attacked by the ACA, and those helpful, “Health reporters” on the networks. The cite that the mammogram technology being used it 25 years old or older and so conclude that the study is flawed. They are dancing around the true question; Is early detection saving more lives?
This is what the researchers were asking, NOT if 25 year old technology was effective.
We will never find a cure as long as we refuse to have an honest discussion. But hey, at least my favorite pro football player wears pink. HA
Thanks for another great article Dr B! After a family member and a friend were diagnosed I began my own amateur research and also found hormones and toxins to be the cause. I also learned that a diet high in sugar will cause the cancer to grow rapidly.
What if early diagnosis is harmful because it rushes one into poisonous treatments and whole lot of stress….and we know what stress can do to the balance of our hormones… And what do most people like to eat when they are stressed: sugar!
Instead what if we eat a super nutrient rich diet with the right mix of quality vitamins along with a proper exercise program. I wonder if cancer could resolve on its own. Do we walk around with cancer unnoticed but make changes to our diet (and detox), return to balance, while our amazing bodies rid the disease from our body?
Kelly,
There is no question that the most important thing we can all do is eat a healthy diet. And, there is not doubt that diet full of refined sugar is not helpful and will feed cancer cells.
DrB