Re: Why do mammograms ...

This is an incredibly weak stance JBR and very very poor show.

BreastCancerNow is not a medical outfit, it is nothing but a charity which specialises in collecting money for cancer research (hmmm). It was formally called Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Project Beacon.

It is nothing but a limited company/charity.

By it's own admission it's employee are:

"fundraisers, campaigners, researchers, believers"

Citing such a company/charity in a discussion about the factual merits and/or harms of mammograms is simply puerile.

I can tell this is a sensitive topic for you and your wife because of your past involvements but you do need to face the peer reviewed facts. They are indisputable and have been agreed by the British Medical Journal.

Accept the facts for what they are. No point fighting it.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Let's look at the figures:

Dental X-Ray is 0.005 mSv
Chest X-Ray is 0.1 mSv
Mammogram is 0.4 mSv

So in total you had about 0.505 mSv

On average a human gets 2.7 mSv of background radiation over the course of 1 year.

Thus you had there about 1/5th of an entire year's background radiation in whatever that short time was.

Really, the bigger issue with the Mammogram is it's utter unreliability. By having one at all, you are putting yourself in the mammogram lottery that ends up with 10 people in every 2000 being diagnosed with a cancer when they didn't need to and thus you risk being one of those people who the NHS will then dutifully set you on the pre-scripted conveyor belt of treatments. Biopses, drugs, radiation, possible surgery and/or mastectomy with all the psychological suffering that comes with it all.

The facts:

"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."

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Mamograms are uncomfortable but not in my experience painful and I am a real wimp for pain .
I certainly would advise all women to have them .
A woman doctor once told me it would be better if all women had them once a year , the three year check being due to cost only .

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Not a 'sensitive topic' at all.

I am merely concerned about misinformation given out by those who have no real knowledge about the subject.

I'll also have you know that my wife has done a great deal of research using peer reviewed articles, as have her colleagues in the division of radiography education at the university.

I can see that I am wasting my time in trying to convince you that thermography is no realistic option to mammography, so shall not continue to do so. I only hope that others, especially those on here who are in doubt about the merits of mammography, have learnt something of value.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Realist, They told me at my last one, due to my age, l won’t be called to have another Mammogram, unless l request it.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Oh Angel, you're not that old. You don't look a day over 50.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

Fraid so! JBR. People may say, l don’t look my age but l can’t escape from the fact, whatever age l may look, the number of years that l am, don’t change!

Re: Why do mammograms ...

This would result in an awful number of false-positive results leading to a great many people under-going treatment for no reason at all.

The facts once again are:

"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."

Your doctor is simply following the mantras and party lines passed to them from above.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

You're as old as you feel, and look. What do numbers matter?

Personally, I'm 21.

Re: Why do mammograms ...

It seems otherwise to me and language like "I'll have you know" supports my view TBH.

That being the case it's odd (if not startling) that her Wommen.org website makes no mention whatsoever of the Cochrane Research which is accepted by just about every other medical institution.

Your website states:

"There is a debate about how many lives are saved by breast screening and how many women are ‘over-treated’ – they are informed they have breast cancer when this would have never become life threatening. From the evidence, screening saves 1 life in every 200 women screened. 1,300 lives are saved in the UK every year from breast screening. About 3 women in every 200 women screened are termed as ‘over-diagnosed’"

This information is patently wrong. Whether that is because it is totally out of date or because it's looking at an NHS version of data is unclear. Either way the info on the website is completely wrong and thus very misleading, the very things you say you are concerned about.

Only 1 in 2000 women will avoid dying from breast cancer and at least 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily and 200 or more women will suffer huge psychological worry and stress from false-positive results to boot.

I'm curious as to why you are not hugely concerned that this women.org website has failed in all this time to mention the accepted Cochrane research information.