Join for free
Page 3 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 13 > Last »
JBR's Avatar
JBR
Chatterbox
JBR is offline
Cheshire, UK
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 32,785
JBR is male  JBR has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 11:56 AM
21

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Originally Posted by Realist ->
I did not at any stage suggest that patients don't get tested. What I said was I would advise against getting tested via a Mammogram. There ARE alternatives that don't involve radiating your body. They WILL become the norm.

I understand it perfectly thanks JBR.

The typical claims that mammograms are merely 0.4 miliservets of radiation and that this doesn't matter are not something that sways me.
I'm afraid that I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate all of your points, so I shall just look at the first few.

The 'alternatives' you have mentioned so far include only thermography. This is a particularly ineffective modality. All it shows is areas of increased temperature, and that only near the body surface. In the case of breast pathology, it cannot differentiate between malignant and benign tumours for example and many other pathologies.

I'm not sure that you understand the subject perfectly at all. Have you worked with radiation? Are you a medical physicist? It is one thing reading random publications but, with respect, I (and especially my wife) have extensive practical experience following thorough training in the subject.

By the way, the units are millisieverts.

We shall just have to disagree. Strange, though, that the NHS spends millions in providing mammographic examinations when they are so ineffective! No doubt the NHS is a corrupt organisation run by greedy people who are subservient to 'big pharma'!
JBR's Avatar
JBR
Chatterbox
JBR is offline
Cheshire, UK
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 32,785
JBR is male  JBR has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:06 PM
22

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Originally Posted by CeeCee ->
My sister would not be alive had it not been for a mammogram. She did not fall into the required age bracket but felt there was something not quite right and requested her GP to send her for a mammogram, he refused, said it wasn’t necessary. So she arranged to pay for one privately, she was diagnosed with early stage cancer. Had surgery and subsequent treatment and ten years on, she is fit an healthy.
I'm glad that there are still a majority of sensible people who do not refuse mammography. Some of you here have made some very good points in its favour.

My wife until her retirement created a web site to encourage and explain the use of mammography, and still does on an ad hoc basis. I have posted this on this site before:

http://wommen.org.uk/

I wish that those women who say that they will not have mammography would look at that site, learn a lot more about it, and see what other women - patients and practitioners - have to say about it.

Above all, I would strongly advise against paying any attention to the prophets of doom, especially those who have no personal experience in the subject.

Women, it is your choice and your life, and cancer is a particularly nasty way to die.
Realist
Chatterbox
Realist is offline
UK
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 9,184
Realist is male  Realist has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:10 PM
23

Re: Why do mammograms ...

People need to do their research here. There's a lot of the usual bunkum and anecdotal nonsense being spouted.

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/vide...breast-cancer/

"Ty Bollinger: So the detection technique that we’re using, the primary technique that we use to detect breast cancer, is causing breast cancer.

Dr. Ben Johnson: Absolutely, it’s a terrible test; you know smashing women’s breasts and then irradiating with cancer-causing radiation. And then it’s so insensitive. For women under 50, it’s only like 52% effective, sensitive. That means 52 is pretty close to 50, right?

Ty Bollinger: Yeah.

Dr. Ben Johnson: So about half. That means that half the women that have breast cancer, it would not detect their cancer. That’s a terrible test. And so there are much better tests. And yet this is what’s still being crammed down women’s throats today. Terrible test, causes breast cancer."

Read the whole article


I will say again, subjecting your body to unnecessary levels of ionising radiation is a patently stupid thing to do. The corrupt and fraudulent medical industry, controlled as it is by huge pharmaceutical conglomerates is going to continue to send naïve and frightened patients down the Mammography route. Remember the sales tactic is ALWAYS the same, a "Campaign of Fear" to frighten people out of their wits and bully them into compliance. Be strong and take responsibility for your own health, do your research, thoroughly and then take the necessary action for YOUR health.


Thermography is the way to go. Non-invasive and doesn't irradiate your breasts.

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/mamm...ography-video/


The myth and lies about Mammograms being the right thing to do to catch cancers early.

"Dr. Veronique Desaulniers: Well, let’s start with mammograms. Again, by the time they see a lump on a mammogram, it has taken five to eight years to develop. "

Dr. Ben Johnson: "Well long before there was a tumor there, there were cancer cells. Probably 8 to 10 years before there was a tumor, there were cancer cells starting to grow. Two cells, four cells, 16 cells, 144 cells, etc. It takes about eight years until you get to about a centimeter in size for a mammogram or an ultrasound to detect it. Well that’s too late. Because that one-centimeter tumor, about five-sixteenths of an inch, less than half an inch, is about one billion cells.

When you get to one billion cells, the cancer has already eroded into the lymphatic system and the venous system and it’s shedding cancer cells all through the body. So that’s why mammograms—one of the many reasons mammograms don’t save lives, it is NOT early detection. That’s one of the little lies they’ve propagated along.

“Early detection saves lives. Get your mammogram today.”


The Alternatives

"Dr. Ben Johnson: Well there’s two better options. If you’ve got a lump, if you think you’ve got something, ultrasound is great. It’s a test of anatomy. Mammograms are tests of anatomy. Ultrasounds are tests of anatomy. MRIs are tests of anatomy. So if you’ve already got a lump, you want a test of anatomy."

"So, that would be like an ultrasound because they can see the lump, they can see its consistency. They can see where there’s calcium in it. And they can look at blood flow because tumors are going to have increased blood flow. So, for instance, a sensitivity of ultrasound is up around 80%. It’s much higher than mammograms. And the sensitivity is higher too."

"But if you’re looking about prevention, if you’re talking about screening, there’s really only one device out there and that is thermography. An infrared thermal camera. Nothing touches the lady. Nothing smashes her breasts. There’s no cancer causing radiation."
Mags's Avatar
Mags
Supervisor
Mags is offline
South West UK
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 47,931
Mags is female  Mags has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:11 PM
24

Re: Why do mammograms ...

I didn't refuse any of the mammograms offered me, some men will never understand how much receiving the 'normal' result letter can mean to them.

I know several ladies, including my next door neighbour, who have had mammograms which have shown a lump. Thankfully they were immediately treated and are still here years later.

No-one other than a medical person should advise a woman against having the mammogram.
Realist
Chatterbox
Realist is offline
UK
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 9,184
Realist is male  Realist has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:15 PM
25

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Originally Posted by JBR ->
Strange, though, that the NHS spends millions in providing mammographic examinations when they are so ineffective! No doubt the NHS is a corrupt organisation run by greedy people who are subservient to 'big pharma'!
It is indeed incredibly strange when peer reviewed studies highlight that Mammograms are so unreliable. Ah but then we remember also that the NHS (controlled by the higher echelons) expends £millions on promoting and pushing out the Flu Vaccines which again, peer reviewed research from the highest international reviewing body has clearly exposed as being utterly useless. Go Figure.

The NHS is strapped for cash allegedly, desperately in need of funding in key areas and yet, every year they expend £millions on these useless vaccines which generate lots of lovely revenue.

Anyone with a semblance of rationality can see the bigger picture here.
tarantula
Chatterbox
tarantula is offline
UK
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 9,359
tarantula is female  tarantula has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:16 PM
26

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Originally Posted by Silver Tabby ->
... have to hurt so much?

I just bet that machine was designed by a man. Anyway 4 weeks to wait now for the result ... unless they find find something sinister.

The radiographer told me they are allowed only 6mins per patient - given that we are not all as flexible as each other and some are better endowed than others - this does seem a bit unachievable. I asked what would happen if time ran out before ones xray was finished. Without even raising an eyebrow she replied that we would all turn into pumpkins!
I don't find them exactly pleasant, but I don't find them that painful either. I have my last one, hopefully, next year.
Realist
Chatterbox
Realist is offline
UK
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 9,184
Realist is male  Realist has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:17 PM
27

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Originally Posted by Mags ->
No-one other than a medical person should advise a woman against having the mammogram.
Right. But what we CAN do is strenuously advise women to do full and thorough research of their own before going down any specific route. The medical industry is very clearly not interested in giving people alternative options. It follows a prescribed course of actions handed down to them from above.
Realist
Chatterbox
Realist is offline
UK
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 9,184
Realist is male  Realist has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:41 PM
28

Re: Why do mammograms ...

I'm going to ignore the usual jibes and put downs of conspiracy theories and "you're not a doctor" and all the rest of the typical mumbo jumbo that seeks purely to justify it's own position whilst completely ignoring the evidence.

People will either buckle under the "Campaign Of Fear" tactics and do no research and run to get a mammogram, or, they will step back, and be resolved to do the required research to get to the truth.

It's a free choice and we are all personally responsible for our own health now.

I've debunked the fraudulent and shameful NHS promotion of the flu vaccine multiple times in threads on this forum and done so by citing peer reviewed research and studies that are simply indisputable. Indeed, no forum poster has ever in the past 2 years stumped up any peer reviewed study results to counter the assertions that the Flu Vaccines are pure snake oil.

Therefore I am going to do the same here. Mammograms are horrendously unreliable and therefore a wholly inappropriate test to perform for the detection of breast cancer. That ought to be enough reason to ditch them but on top of that they also compress the breast tissue and expose them to harmful radiation. Just unbelievably dangerous.

Here is the research and results from the internationally respected Cochrane Library. This is the institution that the medical industry relies on to both establish the correct UNBIASED testing protocols for researchers, and to conduct solid research and studies themselves.

http://www.cochrane.org/CD001877/BRE...th-mammography

"The review includes seven trials that involved 600,000 women in the age range 39 to 74 years who were randomly assigned to receive screening mammograms or not.

The studies which provided the most reliable information showed that screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality.

Studies that were potentially more biased (less carefully done) found that screening reduced breast cancer mortality.

However, screening will result in some women getting a cancer diagnosis even though their cancer would not have led to death or sickness. Currently, it is not possible to tell which women these are, and they are therefore likely to have breasts or lumps removed and to receive radiotherapy unnecessarily. If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% after 13 years of follow-up and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily.
Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings."


There is more here:

Cochrane Nordic PDF

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...uLTsL27HNxnkRx

"Screening did not reduce the number of late stage tumours (those bigger than 2 cm), which means that breast screening is unlikely to reduce breast cancer mortality or lead to less invasive treatment."

"1 in 3 breast cancers detected in women offered screening are likely overdiagnosed."

"Women have been told for decades that breast screening saves lives; that the reduction in breast cancer mortality is substantial; that screening leads to less invasive treatment; and that the harms are small and nothing to worry about. Our study shows that the premises for these benefits have not been met."

"Breast screening has substantial harms, of which overdiagnosis is generally recognised as the most serious. A breast cancer diagnosis is a life-changing event with profound implications for the psychological well-being and quality of life for the woman affected and her family. The overdiagnosis also leads to unnecessary treatment with surgery, radiotherapy and sometimes chemotherapy, all of which are known to have serious, sometimes lethal, harms. Screening does not reduce mortality and it increases the amount of invasive surgery, including mastectomies.
Additionally, breast screening leads to a 25 % to 50 % risk of being recalled due to a false positive test result if women attend screening for the often recommended 20 year period. A false positive recall often means more mammograms and often biopsies. The time until a breast cancer diagnosis is excluded can be very stressful, and for many women the negative implications for their quality of life last for more than 3 years after they have been declared free from cancer."


Do the research. Don't allow fear and uncertainty to cloud your judgement.
Mags's Avatar
Mags
Supervisor
Mags is offline
South West UK
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 47,931
Mags is female  Mags has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:42 PM
29

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Originally Posted by Realist ->
Right. But what we CAN do is strenuously advise women to do full and thorough research of their own before going down any specific route. The medical industry is very clearly not interested in giving people alternative options. It follows a prescribed course of actions handed down to them from above.
Can I ask what qualifications do you have that gives you the right to ‘advise’, ladies in particular, against mammograms, against flu jabs and no doubt a lot of other things?

Who do you mean by, I quote, “But what we CAN do is...” ?
Who is “we”?
Silver Tabby's Avatar
Silver Tabby
Chatterbox
Silver Tabby is offline
God's own county!
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 24,659
Silver Tabby is female  Silver Tabby has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
17-06-2018, 12:49 PM
30

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Realist - I appreciate the information you give and the time/trouble you go to in providing it - but - the bottom line is - I found a lump and had to have the mammogram to check it out because there is no alternative available to me in my home town. Simple as that. I am 99% certain it is benign because it is moveable - so I am not going to worry about it but it would just be nice to be sure.
 
Page 3 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 5 13 > Last »

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.