Re: Why do mammograms ...

I also like reading realists posts

Like Ruthio, I think some do go on too long, but I find them very informative

I don't go for mammograms and I won't be unless there becomes a clinical need

i researched myself when I got my invite and I made my decision based on my research

All realist is doing is bringing you the research , up to the reader to decide wether to read it

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Some further info on this idea of suing companies.

Firstly, let's understand that a company conducting independent research is completely impartial and un-connected to the medical treatments and/or drugs being studied.

If an independent review by Which? magazine suggest that Morphy Richards kettles are great and that leads you to buy one, you can't go and sue Which? magazine if yours turned out to be a lemon. Data is data. Those who provide research take the data and analyse it.

Cochrane is NOT giving people Mammograms or Flu jabs. Cochrane are not doing anything to anyone. They are merely reviewing independently and impartially the available data using gold standard protocols and then publishing the results. The idea that you might sue them is just absurd.


Secondly let's look at just how corrupt and divisive the world we live in has become. If we talk again about vaccinations which more and more people are realising can be extremely harmful, esp to kids then I would agree with you wholeheartedly that IF a human being's health is damaged by a vaccine then they should very rightly be able to sue the vaccine manufacturer. It's common sense.

Unfortunately it's NOT the case.

Such is the utter corruption and state of this totalitarian western world that in the USA, federal laws have been passed which mandate that you MAY NOT sue a vaccine manufacturer even if your health is damaged.

As staggering as this sounds, it is true.

https://www.sfgate.com/health/articl...rs-3894230.php

"Parents whose children are harmed or killed by allegedly defective vaccines can't sue the manufacturers for damages in state court and must instead accept no-fault compensation from a national tribunal for vaccination injuries, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday."

"The law established a "vaccine court" where those who claimed injuries from vaccination must file their claims. If a hearing officer determined that the harm was consistent with the vaccine's known side effects, the victim would be awarded compensation without having to prove that the manufacturer caused the harm or acted negligently."

This is a dreadful situation. It gives Carte Blanche for the Big Pharma vaccine companies to create and cook up whatever poisonous cocktails they want and to market them as vaccines. They can willingly create vaccines that cause harm if that is their agenda and by law, no citizen is allowed to sue them. Victims can only get compensation from this set aside government body and it won't surprise anyone to know that this government body DOES pay out many many £millions every year to families who successfully show that their health has been compromised by vaccines.

The world is a very sick place at the moment. Our rights and liberties are eroding fast and huge "for profit" corporations realising that they can make money off people in multiple ways, have realised that health (or lack of) is a huge money spinner. They have accordingly set about harming our health on multiple fronts imho in order that we then all go flocking to the health services to pay for long pre-planned conveyor belt doses of drugs and expensive treatments.

We ARE at war. A war on our health. We have to wake up and take personal responsibility for our health now.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

I think I have said all I want to say on the matter. At the end of the day, all women will make their own decisions as to whether or not to have a mammogram. One other factor, which I should add, is that in America women over 40 are offered a mammogram every year. In the UK it is women aged 50 and above and is every three years. Perhaps that factors into Realists scare tactics about 'the dangers of ionising radiation'.

I spoke to my wife about this and she tells me that the 'wommen' web site I sent earlier may not have been updated since she retired at the end of last year. The more up to date source - run by qualified practitioners in the UK - is:
https://www.facebook.com/BreastScreeningMammography/

If anyone is still undecided as to whether or not to have mammograms, it would be advantageous to have a look on this Facebook site.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Sorry JBR but I suspect you're info is way out of date.



https://www.canceractive.com/cancer-...ordic-Cochrane

"When the Nordic Cochrane Centre concluded from a meta-study on (largely synthetic) vitamins that they seem to do no good and may even cause harm, it was front page news in the National papers. However, when the same prestigious Institution tells the world that a thorough analysis of mammography research shows that mammography definitely does cause harm, you are lucky to find a passing mention in the press.

Yet, their research conclusions have now been confirmed by an independent study. We are not surprised. At CANCERactive we have been telling you this for nearly 9 years! "


"Are they right in their claims? Researchers at Southampton University set out to ´assess the claim in a Cochrane review that mammographic breast cancer screening could be doing more harm than good´.

The findings published in the British Medical Journal, December 2011 agreed with Cochrane and stated that mammograms indeed have ´caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening´. "

"The fact is that screening creates breast cancer patients out of healthy women who would never have developed symptoms. And treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying from both heart disease and cancer itself"


At the end of the day women must ask themselves this. Given that the Cochrane Institute conducted their studies quite some years ago and concluded that Mammograms are harmful and somewhat useless, and given that the British Medical Journal agreed with their findings, it would therefore surely be a nailed on certainty that the NHS and all associated staff would dutifully inform all Mammogram patients beforehand of this study and its conclusions and the likely outcome.

So, question . . . .

How many women here have been informed about the Cochrane Research before they read it in this thread today?

Re: Why do mammograms ...

JBR old bean. These are not my "scare tactics". Understand that the Cochrane Library, some years ago, did the research and found that Mammograms ARE harmful and pretty useless as a test for cancers. The British Medical Journal agreed. You need to let that sink in because it flies in the face of your current understanding and presumably that of your website.

Her website, and any other related website or facebook page needs to very clearly set out the professional and peer reviewed information from Cochrane otherwise it is being wholly negligent in it's duties.

In terms of the comments about the USA and other countries I'll leave you with this link which explains the impact that this Cochrane study had:

http://nordic.cochrane.org/news/new-...-overdiagnosis

"Independent expert groups in Switzerland and France have recommended that breast screening be stopped or reduced substantially. Elsewhere, guidelines are already changing as well, i.e. the American Cancer Society now recommend less frequent screening of a narrower age group than just two years ago. Our study supports this development"

"Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society, Dr. Otis Brawley recognises the need for accepting the limitations of mammography screening, “Acknowledging the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis challenges the value of screening: it means that the benefits of breast screening have been overstated, and that some women who have been “cured” were harmed because they received unnecessary treatment”."

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Yes I agree, it does hurt, and they say the bigger you are, the more it hurts.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

I do realise that the discussion has evolved to a deeper level than that concerning the pain or discomfort experienced during the procedure, and I will leave the outcome of these deliberations to the individuals concerned .....

However, a few years ago, I was advised by a friend to take a strong painkiller an hour before the procedure and can confirm that this helped.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

It is nothing to do with personalities Ruthio and, when I said "the rest of us", I was referring to a few people who have said that is the best option for them.

I know Realist has used the Cochrane Institute to verify many of his posts so I have previously looked into what they do. They are a group who look into many methods of medical practice, but if you want to find something that relates to your own health, it would be faster to read War and Peace in one sitting.

Nobody is saying that mammograms are !00% safe, just as many other medical practices can't be guaranteed so, but I don't think that Cochrane can guarantee that other methods will produce better results. I am also sure that there will be very few ladies, who are able to or wish to, travel long distances for breast cancer checks....mainly because the risk from a mammogram is too small to justify taking time off work or paying the cost of travelling on a regular basis. If Cochrane believe it is so important why don't they ask if they can offer alternative advice , via leaflets, at all breastcare centres?
If the NHS cannot afford the alternative methods, I am sure that many people would be unable to pay additional costs.

All I am saying is that Realist may believe what he reads but, if he wants others to listen, a brief description of what he is suggesting instead of long posts which are often critical of others, is not the way to convince people. If he really wants to make a difference, I am afraid that his long, drawn out posts are more likely to make many people just ignore what he is saying.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

I enjoy Realist's posts about many subjects.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

I'm enjoying all the views presented here .... including Realists so shan't be putting him on ignore even though that seems to have been suggested.

From all this I'm gathering that at age 56 I should have had one ... but I've never had one in my life.
It's bad enough having cervical smears.