Breast screening was discussed on Woman's Hour today

"Can mass screening for breast cancer be justified – no, according to a leading researcher who has worked in the field for the last ten years. Jane talks to Professor Peter Gurt- sche from the Nordic Cochrane Research Centre in Copehagen." (I think that spelling should be Peter Gotzsche.)

I've known for years that routine mammograms are not a good thing and I've written about this before. It's good that this has now been stated unequivocally on Woman's Hour, which is such a popular programme.

Professor Gotzsche also categorically advised against regular self-examination of the breasts by women, saying that there is no evidence that it does any good. - Jane Garvey was clearly very surprised to hear this. Many Woman's Hour listeners will have shared her surprise. Self-examination of the breasts has been part of orthodox medical propaganda for many years. It's great, however, to hear a researcher on the subject giving information that is supported by evidence, rather than dogma.

I'm glad there is to be a review of breast cancer screening

BBC News reports that the national cancer director for England, Prof Mike Richards, intends to lead a review of breast cancer screening. Well, not before time! Speaking for myself, I'm not a fan of breast cancer screening, by which I mean screening using mammograms. I believe that routine mammography screening to detect breast cancer does far, far more harm than good. Mammograms have definitely been oversold to women and the disadvantages downplayed. Obviously mammograms will occasionally bring cancers to light that need to be dealt with and this may save the lives of some women and that, of course, is a good thing for those women. But there are far more false positives found, that lead to unnecessary worry and unnecessary surgery, and these are usually cited as the biggest disadvantage to this screening. And there are other big disadvantages: the damage and risk of the radiation itself, and the damage from the great mechanical pressure on each breast when it is painfully squashed/flattened between two metal plates for the X-ray to be taken.

What is rarely mentioned is the possibility that the radiation from the mammography may in itself prove carcinogenic to women being screened. - If you look at this Radiation Chart I think you will be amazed/shocked at how high the dose of radiation from a mammogram is, compared with other X-rays. And breast tissue is extra radiosensitive due to continuous cellular growth activity. - And when you consider that these are not just one-off X-rays... - Well, I consider it pretty risky myself, unless there are symptoms to justify the risk. - But screening refers to routine tests in people without symptoms; it's not about following up symptoms. - And consider the effect of the pressure on the breast of being squashed flat between those metal plates.. - This is usually described by health professionals as 'discomfort', but 'discomfort' it ain't! If the skin of the breasts is thin and there are visible, swollen veins, e.g. as a result of having taken steroids, HRT, antidepressants or certain other prescribed drugs, then it's excruciating pain, and, I would contend, actually causes trauma and permanent damage to that thin skin and those delicate, thin-walled veins. I had a mammogram (not screening) many years ago and you wouldn't catch me having another mammogram, ever. - See also this wise advice about diagnostic technologies. And see Dr Briffa's blog article posted today.

Ionising radiation, from X-rays, mammograms, etc. could become a problem over time and increase cancer risk.

Ionising radiation, from X-rays, mammograms, etc. could become a problem over time and increase cancer risk. See report on WRAL.com.

Lose weight, reduce your risk of most cancers, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, heart attack, vascular dementia, stroke, osteopenia, osteoporosis, hypercholesterolaemia, depression, liver damage and kidney problems, and improve your health in many other ways without drugs, hunger or expense by eating less salt! - Try it! - You will feel so much better! See my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk

The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.

Read my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection

Vulnerable groups

Sodium in foods

Benefits and Risks of Mammograms

The Los Angeles Times reports on the pros and cons of women having annual mammograms.

If you want to reduce your risk of developing breast cancer (and most other cancers) you can do so by cutting down on salt and salty food.

Lose weight, reduce your risk of most cancers, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, heart attack, vascular dementia, stroke, osteopenia, osteoporosis, hypercholesterolaemia, depression, liver damage and kidney problems, and improve your health in many other ways without drugs, hunger or expense by eating less salt! - Try it! - You will feel so much better! See my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk

The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.

Read my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection

Vulnerable groups

And see Sodium in foods

http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/socio.html - social and economic considerations