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.

Review of pros and cons of Breast Cancer Screening highlights need for more honesty from the NHS about the scientific uncertainties involved in it.

The Independent reports on a review of the pros and cons of Breast Cancer Screening which highlights the need for more honesty from the NHS about the scientific uncertainties involved in this screening.

Extract from the report:

"Professor McPherson, citing US evidence, says that breast screening reduces the death rate by 14 per cent in the under-60s, which is of "marginal statistical significance", and by 32 per cent in the under-70s. But even this is a small benefit because at age 60 the risk of death from breast cancer over the next 15 years is just 1.2 per cent – 259 women in the UK would have to be screened to avoid one death.

"Individual benefit from mammography is thus very small, but this is not widely understood. In part this is due to obfuscation from organisers of mammography services assuming that a positive emphasis is needed to ensure reasonable compliance," Professor McPherson says.

He calls for a "full examination of all the data" and more honesty from the NHS about the scientific uncertainties. He also suggests that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) should review the evidence.

"There is no doubt that screening for breast cancer has limited benefit and some possibility of harm for an individual woman and is of marginal cost-effectiveness for the community... The NHS screening programme needs to be really clear about the uncertainties when communicating with women... More importantly we all need to understand better how a national programme of such importance could exist for so long with so many unanswered questions.""

I have always considered routine mammography screening as an expensive political pretence of concern for women's health, that actually does far more harm than good to the women screened. Screening is not prevention, though it seems to be promoted as though it is prevention. Prevention should be the primary aim where cancer is concerned, but the Cancer Research industry accords little effort to prevention.

BBC Radio 4's File on 4 reported on cancer research wasting vast amounts of donated money and taxpayers' money on worthless studies.

Cancer studies 'wasted millions': See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7098882.stm

Extracts from the BBC webpage:

"Millions of pounds of charity donations and taxpayers' money have been wasted on worthless cancer studies, the BBC has learned.

File On 4 has discovered thousands of studies have been invalidated.

It found some scientists have failed to carry out simple and inexpensive checks to ensure they are working with the right forms of human tumour cells."

"Cancer Research UK, which spends £315m a year on research, would not be interviewed for the programme."

A web article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/regulation-of-carcinogens_b_555798.html by Samuel S. Epstein Cancer prevention expert, prof. emeritus at U. of IL School of Public Health, Chicago is very interesting.

Regulation of Carcinogens Is Four Decades Overdue

Extracts:

"For over four decades, NCI policies have been and remain fixated on damage control -- screening, diagnosis, treatment and related research. Meanwhile priorities for prevention, from avoidable exposures to carcinogens in air, water, consumer products, and the workplace have remained minimal."

"Breast cancer is increasing 17% due to a wide range of factors. These include: birth control pills; estrogen replacement therapy; toxic hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; diagnostic radiation; and routine premenopausal mammography, with a cumulative breast dose exposure of up to about five rads over ten years."

"These estimates are based on those published in 1981 by the late U.K. epidemiologist Richard Doll. However, from 1976 to 1999, Doll had been a closet consultant to U.K. and U.S. industries, including General Motors, Monsanto and the asbestos industry. Following revelation of these conflicts of interest, just prior to his death in 2002, Doll admitted that most cancers, other than those related to smoking and hormones, "are induced by exposure to chemicals often environmental." "

Can't get much clearer than that! We are all being CONNED by the Cancer Research Industry and at HUGE, WASTED expense.

BMJ article questions effectiveness of mammography

See Dr Briffa's blogpost on the subject.

I've never been in favour of breast cancer screening. See further negative findings re: breast cancer screening.

Further Negative Findings re Breast Cancer Screening

The Telegraph reports on a study which finds substantial 'overdiagnosis' in breast cancer screening: more than a third of cancers detected in the screening are 'harmless'.

I have never been in favour of breast cancer screening. I have not myself taken up offers of this screening. My personal strongly held opinion over many years is that it does much more harm than good.

I remember an earlier negative finding reported in the Telegraph, which I wrote about in my blog on October 18, 2006:

Screening for breast cancer 'may harm women' here - Extract from the report:

"Breast cancer screening may be doing more harm than good, a new report says today. One in nine UK women is diagnosed with breast cancer at some time. The research found that for every 2,000 women invited to have mammograms, one would have their life prolonged but 10 would endure potentially devastating and unnecessary treatment."

Since the incidence of breast cancer is rising, and one of the contributory causative factors is obesity, women who are overweight would lower their risk of developing breast cancer if they were to lower their sodium intake, because salt sensitivity and fluid retention are what cause obesity, rather than over-eating.

(A survey carried out by Cancer Research UK found that most British people do not know there is a strong link between obesity and cancer. Most were aware of a link between obesity and heart disease, but not with cancer. Studies have shown that being overweight increases the risk of cancer of the breast, bowel, womb, kidney and oesophagus. A major study (2003) by the American Cancer Society also associates obesity with stomach cancer and prostate cancer in men, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and cancers of the cervix, ovary, prostate, liver, and pancreas.)

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

And see Sodium in foods and

http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/story.html - my 'political' page

amitriptyline

prescribed steroids and HRT

See advice for pregnant mothers

Children and Obesity

Associated health conditions

and FAT RETENTION

The number of women who attend breast screening appointments has fallen below 70% for the first time, prompting fears of a rise in cancer incidence.

Fall in screening attendance prompt fears of rise in breast cancer
from the Telegraph

Extract:

"In the past 20 years, since it was established, the NHS Breast Screening programme is believed to have detected more than 100,000 cancers.

But now it is feared that the "inconvenience" of screening is preventing women from keeping their appointments.

A spokeswoman for the NHS Cancer Screening Service said: "Busy women put off going because the clinic is difficult to get to or the timing of appointments does not fit their lives. They don't have time," she said.

Embarrassment, discomfort and fears that the procedure may be painful were also deterrents, she said."

I think the organisers should stop speaking of 'discomfort' and 'fears' of pain, as though the procedure is not painful. - It is extremely painful for many women, for fat women in particular, because their breasts are more delicate to start with. And their delicate skin and veins become extra painful from the pressure exerted on them by the procedure.

Breast cancer risk can be lowered by reducing salt intake.

Lose weight safely, reduce your risk of most cancers, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart disease, heart attack, vascular dementia, osteopenia, osteoporosis, hypercholesterolaemia, depression, liver 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!

Read my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection

And see Sodium in foods and

http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/story.html - my 'political' page

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

amitriptyline

prescribed steroids and HRT

See advice for pregnant mothers

Children and Obesity

Associated health conditions

and FAT RETENTION

I can be contacted via my website if you need my further help. My help is free.