Mammograms- more harmful than helpful?

This information has been distilled from articles from several sources who wish to remain anonymous. Normally we would not publish such material but, in this case, we believe the information is so important to todays women that we feel obligated to include it in the interests of public awareness. The references at the bottom of this page serve to verify the information herein.

We strongly urge anyone concerned about mammography to also read this article: Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew) Article by Dawn Prate on newstarget.com

For over 15 years now at least one Australian physician has been advising patients NOT to have mammograms in the belief that the 'squashing' of the delicate breast tissue has the potential to do more damage than good, Lately, more and more information is being published to support this view. For example ... In one Canadian study involving 90,000 women aged between 40 and 50 who underwent annual mammograms, actually showed a 35 - 50% increase in breast cancer mortality. This finding was published way back in 1992 in the pre-eminent medical journal, The Lancet. The procedure for a mammogram involves squeezing and compressing the breast in order to get good images. This action has the potential to activate and spread an otherwise contained or localized cancerous mass. The Canadian study suggests that this "squashing" of breast tissue may actually cause the spread of diseased cells and/or the development of cancerous tumors within an otherwise healthy breast.

Now, forget about the danger of the trauma from a mammogram, and ask the question - is mammography as good a test as is generally assumed? Just suppose, for a moment, that only 1 in 6 biopsies performed on the basis of a positive mammogram (or physical exam) actually revealed cancer! (that's something like 70% inaccurate!). Sadly, thousands of women rush, or are pressured into, lumpectomies and even mastectomies on these false findings. This little gem of information comes from a 5 year study of 250,000+ women aged between 35 and 73 (The Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Study).

What about the mainstream advertising, that "early detection" of breast cancer will save a woman's breast (or breasts) or life? Well ... that makes sense! But could they be using the wrong test? Individual studies suggest that the majority of tumors mammograms can reliably detect are those that indicate a relatively advanced stage of metastasized cancer ... too late!

So what test procedure should a physician recommend for patients? Before we come to that, it is important to also tell you that not all cases of breast cancer require surgery or radical treatment of any kind. Approximately 25% of breast cancer diagnoses involve the slow-to-develop ductal or lobular carcinomas "in situ" which (according to a recent report that I was reading) only become malignant in about 2% of cases. Yet women are often pressured or coerced into surgery, radiation and chemo for this type of cancer, when close monitoring over time, coupled with a less invasive treatment regime, would be the sensible approach.

OK ... so what is the better way of testing? Self Examination (monthly), DITI, Ultra Sound or AMAS?

Self Examination: Monthly. This is still one of the most effective tools available in breast cancer screening, but only if you have been shown how to cheek yourself correctly. (Ask your doctor to show you) This is performed by yourself at home each month, and then by your doctor annually.

The University of Toronto study released in 2000, involved 40,000 women. Half screened for breast cancer with Self Examination and annual checkups, and the other 20,000 were screened with Self Examination and mammograms. Ten years into the study the Self Examination and annual checkup group reported 610 cases of invasive breast cancer, and 105 deaths. In the Self Examination and mammogram group there were 622 cases of invasive breast cancer, and 107 deaths. Statistically, there is no significant difference between the 2 groups! Which begs the question: Is there any need for squashing and discomfort along with associated potential increase in risk?

DITI Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI) involves a non invasive (no squashing) scan of your breasts (or whole of body) looking for changes in temperature. One of the main benefits of DITI is that it has the ability to pick up changes in tissue long before self examination, doctor's check or mammography ever will. However, DITI can not pinpoint the exact location of damaged / cancerous cells, so additional procedures (such as MR1 or ultrasound) are still necessary to determine if a tumor is forming or has already formed. Even though you may not have heard of it, DITI is available in Australia.

Ultra Sound. Often, when a mammogram. detects a change, your doctor will refer you for an Ultra Sound to confirm the mammogram's findings. I say ... skip the mammogram and go for the Ultra Sound first. Makes sense to me!

AMAS (Anti-Malignan Antibody Screen) Blood Test. OK ... so here's a test that has been around for more than a decade, and I bet you that your doctor has never heard of it!

Cancer cells (including breast cancer) trigger our body to produce a chemical (peptide) called malignin. When our body detects malignan, our immune system goes on the attack by producing anti-malignan antibodies. A simple blood test, looking for the presence of the anti-malignan antibody (AMAS) is a sound and logical first step in cancer detection. No anti-malignan antibody present means no malignan ... means no cancer! A positive AMAS reading, however, would indicate that there are cancerous cells in your body, but a blood test will not tell you where or what type of cancer is present. After a positive AMAS test, your doctor would follow-up with DITI or an MR1 or some other more specific testing. Clinical studies have shown that the AMAS test is up to 95 percent accurate on the first reading, and up to 99 percent accurate after two readings, with less than 1% false positives.

For more information on the AMAS test, go to ... www.amascancertest.com, you may even be doing your physician a favour by drawing their attention to this information.

Some comments regarding mammographic screening

• "screening women aged 50–59 years with yearly mammography in addition to physical examination detected considerably more lymph node-negative and small breast cancers than screening with physical examination alone but had no impact on mortality from breast cancer."
  
  
• "Detection rates were higher in the mammography [arm of the study].... These detection rates were achieved at the cost of high biopsy rates for benign lesions, and an excess of mastectomies largely due to uncertainty over the appropriate treatment of the excess of in situ carcinomas found."
  
  
• " the addition of mammography to physical examination of the breasts did not reduce the cumulative incidence of lymph node-positive breast cancers. In other words, the stage shift that resulted from mammography screening did not result in a decrease in the absolute rate of advanced breast cancers."
  
  
• "It is striking that the successive trials of breast cancer screening have failed to show a greater reduction in breast cancer mortality ... despite the substantial technologic improvements in mammography since the 1960s."
  
  
• "It seems likely that benefit was derived from the physical examinations together with Breast Self Examination "
  
  
• "One further possible explanation for the lack of difference in breast cancer mortality between the two arms in this trial (annual mammography plus annual physical examination versus annual physical examination) is that treatment of breast cancer has improved to such an extent that there is no longer any benefit from screening."
  
  
• "we cannot confirm that screening in either arm was beneficial."
  
  
• "Although it could have been anticipated that, if mammography makes the major contribution to the benefit of combined screening, we would have observed it ..... we have now conducted sufficient additional follow-up to be able to conclude that it does not do so."
  
  
• "We are not aware of any mammography screening trial that has shown a widening of benefit beyond 7–10 years after entry. "

Mammograms, X-rays may boost breast cancer risk by 250%

An International Agency for Research on Cancer study showed that chest X-rays may increase women's chances of developing breast cancer. The study involved 1,600 women with high-risk BRCA1 and 2 gene mutations.

"If confirmed in prospective studies, young women who are members of families known to have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may wish to consider alternatives to X-ray, such as MRI," Lead researcher Dr. David Goldgar said.

According to the study, women who get chest X-rays before the age of 20 may increase their risk of developing the disease 2.5 times by age 40 compared to women who had never been exposed to x-rays.

"It is important to remember that 90 percent of breast cancer cases are not hereditary and that most healthy women would not need to have frequent chest X-rays, especially if in their 20s," Breast Cancer Care's Dr. Erin Pennery said.

The research has not conclusively tied chest X-rays to breast cancer. The researchers did say that women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer were more likely to remember getting a mammogram than women who had not.

However, it is no surprise that there is skepticism of these findings among cancer industry groups which rely on mammography to recruit patients into lucrative cancer treatment protocols. It is not in the interests of such groups to admit that the very test used to detect breast cancer appears to be causing it.

References & further reading:

1. Mammograms By Dr Con Travershol, in the Cansurvive Magazine - Vol 23, 2004.
2. Screening for Breast Cancer with Manunography Justiflable?" The Lancet, 2000; 355: 129-134.
3. "Mammography Does Not Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality When Added to Careful Breast Examination for Women Aged 50-59 Years," Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000; 92(18); 1,455.
4. "Cochrane Review on Screening for Breast Cancer with Marnmography" The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1340-1342
5. "Screening Mammography - an Overview Revisited" The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1284-1285,
6. "The Cruel and Costly Hoax of Breast Cancer Screening: Protect Yourself from Mainstream Mammography Mania" William Campbell Douglass, M.D., Real Health, January 2002, www.realhealthnews.com/
7. "Medicine Mum on Mammography.. Do the Math" Alternative Medicine, 10/23/00.
8. "Women Need Better Information About Routine Mammography" British Medical Journal, 2003; 327: 101-103, 7/12/03.
9. "Mammography Myths Remain Unexposed" Dr. Joseph Mercola, 7/30/03.
10. "Cochrane Review on Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography" The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1340-1342
11. "Is Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography : Justifiable?" The Lancet, 2000; 355: 129-134
12. More on the Dangers of Mammography
13. Expert Panel Cites Doubts on Mammogram's Worth
14. X-Rays, Cancer and Heart Disease
15. Mammograms Worthless Over Breast Exam Alone
16. article from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute cited in above article
17. Should You Get a Mammogram?
18. Women in the US Not Properly Informed About Mammography

return to top of page

This document (middlepath.com.au/qol/mammograms.php) was last updated on Monday June 16th 2008  ||  email Please Note: While we believe the information we offer is true and valid through our own observations and experiences and we offer it freely with a sincere desire to help our fellow man, woman and child we feel it prudent to include the following as a precautionary device given various “authoritys” current attitude towards our work: Content on this site is provided for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for “professional” “medical” advice or diagnosis. You are responsible for your own health and therefore should make sure you have sought appropriate advice before embarking on any course of therapy or treatment for any condition you may consider that you might be experiencing. If you have or suspect that you have a “medical” problem, it is your responsibility to contact a ”qualified“ health care practitioner. Disclaimer: Information and statements on this site are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.