Title : Largest & Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit
link : Largest & Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit
Largest & Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit
The latest study to reach this conclusion is also one of the longest and largest. As reported by the New York Times: [1]
"One of the biggest and most meticulous studies of mammography has never done, with the participation of 90,000 women and last a quarter century, has added powerful new doubts about the value of screening for women of any age.Where is the wisdom in the use of cancer screening causes cancer?
"We found that mortality rates for breast cancer and all causes cancer were the same in women who received mammograms and those who did not and the projection had damage :. One of every five cancers detected by mammography and treated was not a threat to women's health and did not need treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery or radiation. "
In addition to the damage caused by overtreatment, the wisdom of irradiating their breasts year after year, for decades, is questionable at best, given the fact that ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
the results, published in the British Medical Journal ( BMJ) [2] in 2012 show that women with a mutation in the specific gene called BRCA1 / 2 are particularly vulnerable to cancer induced by radiation.
women carrying this mutation who were exposed to radiation diagnostic before age 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer compared with those who do not have the mutated gene.
also found that radiation-induced cancer was dose-response, ie, the the higher the dose, the greater the risk of developing cancer.
The authors concluded that:
"The results of this study support the use of techniques of non-ionizing radiation image (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for monitoring the young women with BRCA1 / 2 "I have warned against the use of routine mammograms for years, despite the vehement attacks of radiologists and individuals bent on attack. In the final analysis, it was worth the legal fees I had to pay to defend myself against these attacks in recent years, as the ever-increasing research confirms my position on several occasions.
At this point, the controversy is more or less resolved - at least if published research is taken into account. To all my opponents out there who have attacked me for my opinion regarding mammograms, I know that remain in denial. The big lie must continue being told to avoid the guilt associated with the damage. The attacks only make us better in defending controversial views.
Increased mammography study to date not find Benefit
The presented study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) [3] included a screening period of five years with a total follow-up period of 25 years. Women, ages 40-59, were randomly assigned to receive either five screens annual mammogram or an annual physical breast examination without mammography.
During the study, 3,250 women who received mammography were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared with 3,133 in the non-mammogram group. Of these, 500 women in the mammography group and 505 in the control group died of the disease.
However, after 15 years of follow-up mammogram group had other 106 additional cancer diagnoses, which were attributable to overdiagnosis. As previously explained by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley the medical director of the American Cancer Society, the term "overdiagnosis" in cancer medicine refers to: [4]
"... a tumor that meets all the criteria laboratory called cancer but, if left alone, will never cause harm. This is a tumor that is not going to continue to grow, spread and kill. it is a tumor that can be cured with no need treatment, but to treat and / or cure "the authors of the study concluded that appears: [5]
". the annual mammography in women aged 40-59 years of age does not reduce mortality breast cancer beyond physical examination or special care of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is free. overall, 22 percent of screen-detected invasive breast cancer is over-diagnosed, which represents a over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening at trial. "More studies deny value of routine mammograms
The rate of overdiagnosis (22 percent) is almost identical to that found in a Norwegian study 2012 [6], which found that up to 25 percent of women are diagnosed with consistent excess with breast cancer that, if left alone, would never have they caused any damage. Other studies support the findings of the study the following functions are included:
in 2007, the Archives of Internal Medicine [7] published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized controlled trials mammogram Among its findings:. the rates of false positive results are high (20-56 percent after 10 mammograms)
Similar results were found in a meta-analysis of 2009 by the Cochrane Database [8] who found that the detection of breast cancer led to a rate 30 percent of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which actually increases the absolute risk of developing cancer by 0.5 percent. The review concluded that for every 2,000 women invited for screening over a period of 10 years, the life of a single woman was prolonged, while 10 healthy women were treated unnecessarily.
Another study in Norway [9] published in 2010, concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small that it is nonexistent -. Only 2.4 deaths per 100,000 people were saved as a result of the screening
Research published in The Lancet Oncology in 2011, [10] describes the natural history of breast cancers detected in the program of mammographic screening in Sweden between 1986 and 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are treated and / or deleted before they can be determined with certainty to be a clear and present threat to health aggressively, there has been little or no research on what happens when you let them alone.
This study, however, showed for the first time that women who received the highest number of screening breast had a higher cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer during the next six years than the control group which received much less projections.
false negative-Another danger of mammography
In addition to false positives leading to unnecessary treatments, there is also the risk of getting a false negative, which means that a cancer that threatens life is lost. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms lose up to 20 percent of breast cancers that are present at the time of detection.
If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in the breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of breast tissue, which is then examined by a pathologist under a microscope to determine the presence of cancer.
The problem is that early stage cancer such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be very difficult to diagnose, and there is no standard diagnostic for him. Moreover, pathologists who do readings have expertise are required.
Dr. Shahla Masood As the chief of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times in 2010: [11]
"Studies show the diagnosis of breast lesions limit these sometimes comes down to the flip of a coin. "it is important to realize that a negative mammogram can not be equated with a certificate of good health. Any negative mammogram can say is that if you have cancer, it has not grown enough yet to be detected.
This is particularly true for women with dense breast tissue. Forty-nine percent of women have the density of breast tissue high [12] and the sensitivity of mammography for dense breasts is as low as 27 percent [13] - which means approximately 75 percent of dense breast women are at risk of being a cancer lost if based solely on mammography . Even with digital mammography, sensitivity is still less than 60 percent.
Women constantly faced with increasingly confusing
The study presented has rekindled the debate over whether or not an annual mammogram is an good choice for most women. Complicating things is the fact that, in recent years, a number of medical groups have created conflicting recommendations regarding whether and when to have a mammogram.
In November 2009, the Working Group Preventive Services of the United States, a federal advisory committee revised its recommendations for cancer screening [14] saying annual mammograms were not necessary for younger women 50 and the projections are only recommended every two years thereafter. The panel based on the new guidelines on data indicating that mammography does more harm than good when used in younger women.
Many cancer groups refused to adopt these guidelines however, and still recommend women over 40 be screened annually. This includes the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and the American College of Radiology.
In 2011, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) women threw for another loop when it changed its guidelines to include more screening compared with its previous recommendations. ACOG previously recommended annual mammograms beginning at age 50. From 2011, it began urging women to get an annual mammogram from age 40. As stated by the New York Times: [15]
"[T] he days of one size fits all screening may be running out. Now patients and their doctors face more nuanced options, depending on the risk of each woman to breast cancer and feelings about the possibility of unnecessary treatment. 'balance between the benefits and harms growing up in the air, "said Dr. Russell P. Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill . "reasonable people will disagree. '"3D-La crazy tomosynthesis alternative that increases their risk even more
Unfortunately, instead of admitting the flaws and inherent dangers of mammography, the industry released a kind of "new and improved" mammography in 2011 called tomosynthesis 3D , which actually exposed to doses that further higher radiation than a standard mammogram. Worse, they also recommend to continue receiving their traditional 2D mammogram when tomosynthesis is obtained, thus multiplying their exposure to radiation even further. According to Dr. Susan Love surgeon [16] tomosynthesis exposes approximately twice the amount of radiation compared to a standard mammogram.
According to a 2010 study [17] annual screening with digital mammography and screen-film series in women 40-80 years is associated with an incidence of induced cancer and cancer rate fatal breast 20-25 cases per 100, 000. Meaning, annual mammograms 20-25 CAUSE fatal cancers per 100,000 women get tested. Increasing even more - perhaps double - the number of fatal breast caused as a direct result of the selection procedure itself cancer can not be called progress.
Cancer prevention begins with your lifestyle Elections
Mammograms are presented as the best way to "prevent" a woman can get. But an early diagnosis is not the same as prevention.
And cancer screening does more harm than good can hardly qualify as "best choice" against becoming a statistic cancer!
I think that the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strict enforcement, basic common sense strategies healthy lifestyle, such as those below.
Avoid sugar, especially fructose, and processed foods. All forms of sugar are harmful to health in general and promote cancer.
Refined fructose , however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible. This means automatically avoiding processed foods, as most are loaded with fructose (typically in the form of syrup high fructose corn , HFCS).
optimize their vitamin D levels Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of the most potent cancer fighters of nature. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death).
If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should probably be between 70 and 100 ng / ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, no adverse effects. Ideally, levels should reach this point by exposure to the sun or a tanning bed safe, not oral vitamin D.
Limit your protein. Recent research has highlighted the importance of mTOR pathways. When they are active, cancer growth is accelerating.
One way of silencing this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or about a little less than half a gram of protein per pound of body weight lean.
For most, this ranges from 40 to 70 grams of protein a day, which is typically about 2/3 to half of what they are actually eating.
Avoid unfermented soy products. unfermented soybean is high in plant estrogens or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy seems to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances of mutations and cancer cells.
Improving insulin and Leptin receiver sensitivity. The best way to do this is avoiding sugar and grains and carbohydrate restriction to vegetables mostly fiber. Also make sure that you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness .
Exercise regularly. One of the main reasons exercise works to lower your risk of cancer due to units of insulin levels down and control insulin levels is one of the most effective ways to reduce your risk Cancer.
It has also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, making cancer cells.
Studies have also found that the number of tumors to decrease along with body fat, which can be an additional factor. This is because exercise helps lower estrogen levels, which explains why exercise seems particularly potent against breast cancer.
Maintaining a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your type of nutrition and exercise. It is important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
drink a pint to a quart of vegetable organic green juice a day. Please check my juicing instructions for more details.
Get plenty of high quality omega-3 fats of animal origin, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer.
actually has the largest number of literature18 based on the evidence supporting its use against cancer of any nutrients, including vitamin D. For example, it has shown great therapeutic potential in preventing metastasis of breast cancer. [19]
is important to know that curcumin generally not absorbed as well, so I've provided several tips absorption here. most recent preparations have also begun to emerge, offering better absorption. For best results, you need to use a sustained release preparation.
avoid alcohol , or at least limit their alcoholic beverages to one per day.
Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible . Even electric blankets can increase your risk of cancer.
therapy Avoid synthetic hormone replacement, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer.
Breast cancer is a cancer related to estrogen, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, rates of breast cancer for women declined in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy .
(There are similar risks for younger women using oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also composed of synthetic hormones have been linked to cancer of the cervix and breast.)
If you are experiencing symptoms of menopause excessive, you may want to consider therapy bioidentical hormone replacement instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to those produced by the body and not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. This is estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer.
Make sure it is not iodine deficiency , since there is no convincing evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein, [20] author of Iodine: Why You Need, why you can not live without it , iodine is an advocate for cancer mom. Actually, it has anti-cancer powerful and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer.
For more information, I recommend read the book by Dr. Brownstein . I have been researching iodine for some time since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I think most of what sets the nail. However, I am not entirely convinced that their dosing recommendations are correct. I think they are too high.
Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or llama meat grilled is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. acrylamide - a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, fried or-has been found to increase the risk of cancer as well.
This is not an exhaustive list. There are many other strategies that can be useful too. An excellent resource is Dr. Christine Horner book 's Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner Program for the Protection and the Fight Against Breast Cancer , which contains all natural research approaches proven to protect against and treatment of breast cancer.
The expert radiologists Tell him to stop lying about mammograms
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch Dartmouth Institute Health Policy and Clinical Practice on CNN explains why the American College of Radiology two main arguments against Canadian National breast Screening Study are wrong as explained in the video below.
arm themselves with information so you can take control of their health
Many women are still unaware that the support of mammograms science shines by its absence. Instead of being told the truth, because women are fired into thinking that the omission of their yearly mammogram is the height of irresponsibility.
may be difficult to defend its position against such tactics. After all, it is expected that health professionals who know what they are talking about, and to give the best possible advice.
When it comes to cancer prevention, however, many doctors are so brainwashed as the average person in the street, having succumbed to the propaganda of the industry which minimizes or ignores research conflict with its agenda based on earnings.
Mounting research shows that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms are saved by them. In light of these facts, avoiding a yearly mammogram is not an irresponsible act.
The same is true to say "no thanks" to 3D tomosynthesis, which exposes you to an even greater amount of radiation that causes cancer for virtually no benefit.
Please understand that there are other screening options, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, and you have the right to use these options. Also remember that in order to really prevent breast cancer, you need to focus on prevention and not just the actual detection principles.
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
From the author: The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans, but the increasing number of visitors to Mercola.com since I started the site in 1997 - we are now routinely among the top 10 health sites on the Internet - convinces me that you, too, are sick of his deception. You want solutions health practices without the hype, and that's what I offer.
1 New York Times February 11, 2014
2 BMJ 2012 Sep 6; 345: e5660
3 BMJ 2014; 348: G366
4 Annals of Internal Medicine 3 April 2012; 156 (7): 491-9
5 BMJ 2014; 348: G366
6 Annals of Internal Medicine 3 April 2012; 156 (7):. 491-9
7 Ann Intern Med April 3, 2007; 146 (7): 516-526
8 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7 October 2009; (4): CD001877
9 New England Journal of Medicine 23 September 2010; 363 (13): 1203-10
10 Lancet Oncology November 2011; 12 (12): 1118-24
11 New York Times July 19, 2010
12 Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms for women in 1353 25 to 79 years
13 the diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography vs. Movie: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups DMIST. Radiology, February 2008
14 US Preventive Services Task Force, screening for breast cancer, November 2009
15 New York Times February 11, 2014
16 US Today 9 October, 2012
17 Radiology August 24, 2010, doi: 10.1148
18 Greenmedinfo.com, curcumin
19 Clinical Cancer Research October 15, 2005: 11; 7490
20 Dr. Brownstein - Family Medicine Holostic
0 Response to "Largest & Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit"
Post a Comment