BOLD DECISIONS COULD AVOID UNNECESSARY TREATMENTS
|
There is nothing more guaranteed to hush a conversation than the mention of breast cancer. It has become almost a taboo subject. Woman of all ages rush to have their routine mammograms without stopping to think rationally to what they are exposing themselves.
CAUTION WITH X-RAYS It is well known that x-rays use radiation that can be harmful to the body, even in small doses, and while they can be invaluable for examining broken bones and in dentistry, they should not be used more than is absolutely necessary and certainly not for consistently x-raying an organ or other sensitive tissue as part of a screening tool. We are assured that the amount of radiation that is administered in mammography is exceptionally low and is approved by national and international regulatory agencies as well as the National Department of Health and Human Services. LOW DOSES MORE RISKY However, recent radiobiological studies (from the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust) have provided compelling evidence showing that1 ‘the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times, but possibly as much as six times, more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.’ (My emphasis. Ed.) It was concluded that great caution is needed if a programme of early regular screening with X-rays is to be used for women with a family history of breast cancer. The Cancer Research UK website reports that the NHS breast screening programme uses mammograms to screen for breast cancer in women in the UK from the age of 50 to 70. In England, the programme is currently being expanded and will offer mammograms to women between the ages of 47 and 73. They claim that current evidence suggests that breast screening reduces the number of deaths from breast cancer by about 1,300 a year in the UK. Around 4 out of 100 women (4%) are called back as part of the NHS breast screening programme, but only about 1 in 5 of these women will be found to have cancer. These women will have had some unnecessary anxiety, but doctors and researchers feel that the anxiety is balanced by the screening programme picking up many breast cancers very early on in their development. They claim that these cancers are usually easier to treat, may need less treatment and are more likely to be cured. DANGER OF FALSE-POSITIVES However, there are those who cast doubt on these claims. (See important update below) The danger attached to early mammograms is not so much from radiation but from false-positive results that can lead to unnecessary biopsies, resulting in scar tissue that can make subsequent mammograms more difficult to read. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that a cancer should be handled as carefully as possible with very gentle palpation in order to avoid accidental spread of the disease, and yet the compression used in the mammography procedure can be very rough indeed. 
COMPRESSION CAN HARM
The recommended force used in order to compress the breast tissue enough for a proper mammogram is 300 Newton. That is equivalent to stacking between 40 and 50 one-pound bags of sugar on the breast. Dr.William Campbell Douglass Jnr, writing for the Weston Price Foundation claims “the act of squeezing and compressing the breast in order to get good images during mammography may activate and spread an otherwise contained or localized mass of cancerous cells.” PROBLEMS OF OVER DIAGNOSIS Dr. Douglass reveals that “screening can also find some very early, slow growing breast cancers that would never cause any problems in a woman's lifetime. It may also pick up some cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) that wouldn’t ever develop into cancer. But doctors can't tell which early breast cancers or cases of DCIS would never cause a problem, so the safest option at the moment is to treat them all. This means some women have breast cancer treatment that they wouldn’t have ever needed if they hadn’t been screened. Doctors call this over diagnosis or over treatment”. In November 2012, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by two doctors challenging the validity of mammogram screenings. In the past 30 years, US government data showed that as many as one third of cancers detected by mammography may not have been life threatening, and that over 1 million women have been over-diagnosed, leading to unnecessary treatments involving disfiguring surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy. DISEASE COULD BE SPREAD Dr.Douglass believes “the idea that ‘early detection’ of breast cancer will spare a woman's breast (or breasts) is erroneous. Despite the mainstream's droning on about the need for regular mammograms as an aid to the detection of cancerous tumours, the notion that such advanced warning will lead to a cure for the disease is SIMPLY FALSE. Yet survey data indicates that a huge percentage of at-risk women believe just that. This is really tragic, since the only tumours mammograms can reliably detect are those that indicate a relatively advanced stage of metastasized cancer. Second, the act of getting a mammogram itself may actually CAUSE the spread of diseased cells and the development of cancerous tumours within an otherwise healthy breast.” Imaging the breast may reveal several findings that need further evaluation. There may be micro-calcifications, dense breast tissue or a mass that cannot be identified, irregular tissue growth such as lumps, fibroadenomas, or breast cysts. When these conditions are seen on a mammogram, they have to be further investigated. That means more x-rays, i.e., more radiation to the breast. Radiation itself causes cancer to grow. Even if a woman has a history of breast cancer in her family, adding more radiation is not proven to prevent the growth of cancer just for the simple mission of determining a diagnosis. CALIBRATION OF MACHINES In addition, you have to rely on whether the mammogram machine that is giving the right amount of radiation and pressure has been calibrated correctly. Some mammogram machines are not maintained properly by hospitals or testing facilities as it costs money to verify that they are operating correctly. This means a machine could actually give you a higher dose of radiation or compress your breast with more than the average forty pounds of pressure, if it is incorrectly set. Hospitals and the cancer medical community put all their faith in a very primitive and ancient diagnostic theory of mammogram technology. After these hospitals have invested millions in mammogram machines they run the risk of having to admit that their methods are harmful and were not a wise investment. |
A PROFITABLE INDUSTRY
It appears that cancer as an industry proves very profitable for the manufacturers of mammogram technology. Dr. Douglass claims that there is simply too much money to be made as a result of the irrational fear concerning mammograms. He says that lumpectomies and mastectomies equate to large amounts of cash in doctors' and hospitals' pockets. Conventional mammograms often lead to risky, extreme and expensive treatments for breast cancer but not necessarily to cures or even an increased lifespan and in a number of cases those treatments are completely unnecessary. Many experts such as Dr Michael P. Sherman, M.D., Ph. D agree that "mammograms do not prevent cancer; they can only find existing cancer." The cumulative radiation damage to the DNA from yearly mammograms over a woman's lifetime increases the risk of developing breast cancer in later years, indeed Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.,4 claims that annual radiological breast examination increases breast cancer by 2% every year. Over 10 years, the risk will have increased by 20 %. ELUSIVE ‘CANCER CURES’ Dr. Joseph Mercola, in his August 3rd 2013 newsletter on his website, points out that in spite of the massive technological advances over the past half-century, Western medicine is no closer to finding a ‘cancer cure’, indeed, cancer has grown into a worldwide epidemic of staggering proportions. The statistics speak for themselves:
PREVENTION SHOULD BE KEY Make no mistake, cancer is big business. Dr. Mercola hits out at Big Pharma claiming that the cancer epidemic is a dream for them. Their campaigns to silence cancer cures have been fierce. The cancer industry is spending virtually nothing of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, such as dietary guidelines, exercise and obesity education. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or curing it. As with all medically approved accepted techniques and tools, there comes with it a web of interrelationships between the politicians who approve the grant money, the research institutes who parcel out that money to their labs, the interest groups and other economically driven relationships between government and business that drive the approval of any new breakthrough in medicine. There is much more to it than just trying to save lives. Dr. Mercola asks why would Big Pharma shoot their cash cow? If they can keep the well-oiled Cancer Machine running, they will continue to make massive profits on chemotherapy drugs, radiotherapy, diagnostic procedures and surgeries. AVERAGE TREATMENT COSTS The typical cancer patient spends $50,000 (£31,000) fighting the disease. Chemotherapy drugs are among the most expensive of all treatments, many ranging from $3,000 (£1,850) to $7,000 (£4,300) for a one-month supply. If the cancer industry allows a cure, then their patient goes away. It makes more sense to keep a steady stream of cancer patients alive, but sick and coming back for more treatment. HOW TO REDUCE THE RISK So what can be done to reduce the risk of getting cancer? Dr. Douglass advises against having a mammogram and avoid radiation and chemotherapy. He points out that radiation is highly destructive of not only body tissues but also the immune system which then makes you more susceptible to all diseases. It is a terrible price to pay for a temporary shrinkage of a tumour. He warns that if a large lump in the breast should develop, not to submit to more surgery than a simple lump removal and not to allow surgeons to cut into the lymph nodes in the arm pit. NOT ALL CASES ARE MALIGNANT He stresses that not all cases of breast cancer require surgery or treatment of any kind. About one in four modern breast cancer diagnoses fall into the category of slow-to-develop ductal or lobular carcinomas "in situ" - which only become malignant in about 2% of cases. Yet these women are often misled and panicked into an unnecessary mastectomy that, instead, could simply be closely monitored over time. He asks if you would part with your breast (or a portion of one) for a 2-in-100 long shot? Probably not. But that won't stop doctors and hospitals from urging you to go under the knife. HEALTHY DIET IMPORTANT The type of food you eat is very important. Dr.Douglass warns people to avoid trans fatty acids in margarine and vegetable shortenings that are used in most processed foods and recommends eating oily fish and taking cod liver oil as sources of vitamin D as well as getting plenty of calcium from raw milk and bone broths. Breast cancer is less frequent in areas where there is ample sunlight unobscured by smog or fog, so make sure you get plenty of sun. He advises taking iodine in the form of Lugol's solution and drinking water free of chlorine and fluorine. Women who breast-feed are much less likely to get breast cancer. TRY TO AVOID SUGAR There are many things people can do to help themselves such as reducing sugar intake as much as possible but making sure not to replace it with artificial sweeteners. Instead, train the palate to enjoy the individual taste of different foods that do not necessarily taste sweet. Cruciferous vegetables (so called from the shape of their flowers whose four petals resemble a cross) such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, kale, radishes , turnips and watercress all have excellent anti-cancer properties. Unfortunately, these important vegetables have been largely replaced by the ubiquitous green pea and some people, and children in particular, will accept no other. Years ago, our grandparents knew the value of green leaf vegetables, such as cabbage, spinach and spring greens rapidly boiled in very little water, that filled hungry youngsters at very little cost. Grated raw vegetables and finely shredded cabbage in a salad are most beneficial. RISKS VERSUS BENEFITS With ALL medical procedures it is wise to measure the risks versus the benefits but, unfortunately, most doctors do not tell patients the extent of the risks. Mammography does have some major risks that are now being addressed in the scientific community but ultimately every woman must decide for herself. Once well informed, she should weigh up the pros and cons and make an unemotional, rational decision based on common sense. |
IMPORTANT UPDATE
In an terview on BBC Radio 4 Today Programme on October 29th 2014, the Director of the U.K. National Screening Committee, Dr. Margaret McCartney, cast doubt on the benefits of screening. She confirmed the fact that screening, especially breast screening, often shows up benign abnormalities that would never have caused problems in the lifetime of the person concerned and in such cases intervention would be totally unnecessary.
In an terview on BBC Radio 4 Today Programme on October 29th 2014, the Director of the U.K. National Screening Committee, Dr. Margaret McCartney, cast doubt on the benefits of screening. She confirmed the fact that screening, especially breast screening, often shows up benign abnormalities that would never have caused problems in the lifetime of the person concerned and in such cases intervention would be totally unnecessary.
LATEST TECHNOLOGY : THERMOGRAPHY
A safe alternative to mammography that is gaining popularity is thermography. This technology measures the infra-red heat emitted by the body and translates the information into thermal images. It does not require mechanical compression of the breast or ionizing radiation and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation so that the underlying cause of the inflammation can be addressed before more serious conditions have time to develop. There is also a 3-D ultrasound in the newest technology that uses no radiation whatsoever and can report cysts filled with fluid, solid tumours and cellular changes that need attention. A new machine called Sofia developed in the past few years has proven to have zero false positives in diagnosing tumours.
Of course, there will be the inevitable backlash from organizations that promote mammograms, anxious not to lose credibility. However thermography when correctly used by qualified technicians has a proven record and cannot harm.
Contacts for thermography clinics in the UK can be found on the internet under the reference for Thermography.
A safe alternative to mammography that is gaining popularity is thermography. This technology measures the infra-red heat emitted by the body and translates the information into thermal images. It does not require mechanical compression of the breast or ionizing radiation and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation so that the underlying cause of the inflammation can be addressed before more serious conditions have time to develop. There is also a 3-D ultrasound in the newest technology that uses no radiation whatsoever and can report cysts filled with fluid, solid tumours and cellular changes that need attention. A new machine called Sofia developed in the past few years has proven to have zero false positives in diagnosing tumours.
Of course, there will be the inevitable backlash from organizations that promote mammograms, anxious not to lose credibility. However thermography when correctly used by qualified technicians has a proven record and cannot harm.
Contacts for thermography clinics in the UK can be found on the internet under the reference for Thermography.