- Can Mammogram Radiation Cause Breast Cancer?
- Vitamin D: The Wonder Vitamin
- Thermography vs. Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection: Who Benefits Most?
- The Breast Kept Secret Movie Preview
- Breast implants: the ticking time bomb in millions of women’s bodies
- Surgeons Admit That Mammography Is Outdated and Harmful to Women
- Can These Common Medical Tests & Treatments Give You Cancer?
- Are Mammograms the Best Breast Cancer Test?
- An Uncommon, Early-Warning Sign of Breast Cancer
- Breast Reconstruction: Get the Facts Before You Decide
- March 2020
- February 2020
- February 2019
- January 2019
- June 2018
- April 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- July 2012
- April 2012
March 14, 2020 Breast, Breast Cancer, breast health, breast thermography, Breasts, Cancer, cancer screening, diagnosis, digital infrared thermal imaging, Health, healthcare, mammogram, mammography, medicine, no radiation, prevention, radiation
July 28, 2015 alternative, alternative health, BRCA, BRCA 1, BRCA 2, Breast, Breast Cancer, breast health, breast thermography, Cancer, diagnosis, Harvard, Health, mammogram, mammography, New York, New York Times, no radiation, prevention, radiation, signs, symptoms, thermogram, thermography, Times, tumor, vitamin d, woman, women
Do annual mammograms save lives?
Several studies over the past few years have concluded that mammograms do not save lives, and may actually harm more women than they help, courtesy of false positives, overtreatment, and radiation-induced cancers.
According to research published in 2010, the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent — a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared.
Another study published in The Lancet Oncology in 2011 demonstrated, for the first time, that women who received the most breast screenings had a highercumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings.
Now, researchers from Harvard and Dartmouth have published a paper in which they present similar conclusions.
Mammograms Have No Impact on Breast Cancer Mortality
After analyzing cancer registry data from 16 million women in 547 counties across the United States, they found “no evident correlation between the extent of screening and 10-year breast cancer mortality.”
The researchers concluded that mammograms primarily find small, typically harmless, or non-lethal tumors, leading to widespread overdiagnosis.
As explained by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society and author of the book, How We Do Harm, the term “overdiagnosis” in cancer medicine refers to:
“…a tumor that fulfills all laboratory criteria to be called cancer but, if left alone, would never cause harm. This is a tumor that will not continue to grow, spread, and kill. It is a tumor that can be cured with treatment but does not need to be treated and/or cured.”
“For every 10-percentage-point increase in screening rates, the incidence of breast cancer rose by 16 percent… That worked out to an extra 35 to 49 breast cancer cases for every 100,000 women…
The researchers also examined breast cancers according to their stage at diagnosis, a marker of a tumor’s aggressiveness. More screening was associated with a higher incidence of early-stage breast cancers but no change for later-stage tumors, according to the study.
How can this be?
‘The simplest explanation is widespread overdiagnosis, which increases the incidence of small cancers without changing mortality,’ the study authors wrote. ‘Even where there are 1.8 times as many cancers being diagnosed, mortality is the same.’”
To Screen or Not to Screen?
Clearly, the issue of breast cancer screening using mammography can be a deeply emotional one. Virtually all discussions relating to cancer are. A recent article in Forbes Magazine paints a vivid picture of most women’s fears, and warns of the dangers of not getting diagnosed in time.
While it needs to be an individual choice, I believe it can be valuable to take a step back and look at the big picture, which includes population-based statistics such as those presented above.
“[The] study authors… point to a balance of benefits and harms and believe mammography is likely most favorable when directed at women who are at high risk — not too rarely and not too frequently.
They also believe watchful waiting, rather than immediate active treatment, is probably a good option in some cases.”
A main objection to mammography is the fact that it uses ionizing radiation to take images of your breasts, and it’s a well-established fact that ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
So the idea that the “best” way for you to avoid dying from cancer is to expose yourself to cancer-promoting radiation at regular intervals for decades on end (in order to catch the cancer early) really falls short on logic — especially since there are non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques available.
Results published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2012 show that women carrying a specific gene mutation called BRCA1/2 are particularly vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer.
Women carrying this mutation who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer, compared to those who did not have the mutated gene.
They also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive, meaning the greater the dose, the higher the risk of cancer developing. The authors concluded that:
“The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations.”
Mammograms Do Not Reduce Mortality Beyond That of Physical Examination
It involved 90,000 women who were followed for 25 years, and it sent shockwaves through the medical industry when it reported that the death rates from breast cancer were virtually identical among women who got annual mammograms and those who did not.
“One in five cancers found with mammography and treated was not a threat to the woman’s health and did not need treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation.”
At the outset of the study, the women, aged 40-59, were randomly assigned to receive either five annual mammography screens, or an annual physical breast examination without mammography.Over the course of the study, 3,250 of the women who received mammography were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared to 3,133 in the non-mammography group.
Of those, 500 women in the mammography group, and 505 in the control group, died from the disease. However, after 15 years of follow-up, the mammography group had another 106 extra cancer diagnoses, which were attributed to overdiagnosis. According to the authors:
“Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22 percent of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial.”
The rate of overdiagnosis (22 percent) is virtually identical to that found in a 2012 Norwegian study, which found that as many as 25 percent of women are consistently overdiagnosed with breast cancer that, if left alone, would cause no harm. Other studies that have come to similar conclusions include the following:
- In 2007, the Archives of Internal Medicine12 published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: rates of false-positive results are high (20-56 percent after 10 mammograms)
- A 2009 meta analysis by the Cochrane Database review13 found that breast cancer screening led to a 30 percent rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which increasedthe absolute risk of developing cancer by 0.5 percent. The review concluded that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout a 10 year period, the life of just ONE woman was prolonged, while 10 healthy women were underwent unnecessary treatment.
Know the Signs and Symptoms of Breast Cancer
Mammograms can also miss the presence of cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms miss up to 20 percent of breast cancers present at the time of screening. Your risk for a false negative is particularly great if you have dense breast tissue, and an estimated 49 percent of women do. Mammography’s sensitivity for dense breasts is as low as 27 percent, which means that about 75 percent of dense-breasted women are at risk for a cancer being missed if they rely solely on mammography. Even with digital mammography, the sensitivity is still less than 60 percent.
Considering the mortality rate from breast cancer is virtually identical whether you get an annual mammogram or an annual physical breast exam, it suggests physical examination can go a long way toward detecting a potential cancer. It certainly makes sense to familiarize yourself with your breasts and the signs and symptoms of breast cancer. If you notice any of the following symptoms, be sure to address it with your doctor, even if you’re not due for an annual checkup yet.
- Lump in the breast (keep in mind that breast lumps are common, and most are not cancerous)
- Pain or unusual tenderness or swelling in the breast
- Retracted nipple
- Nipple discharge
- Vaginal pain
- Dimpling of the breast surface, and/or “orange peel” skin texture
- Visible veins on the breast
- Enlarged lymph nodes (located in the armpit)
- Unintentional weight loss
To learn about Breast Cancer prevention tips, and to read Dr. Mercola’s full article click here.
May 19, 2015 acid, acidic, acidity, akaline, blood, Cancer, cancer prevention, fighting cancer, fresh, fruit, Health, health care, healthy, homeopath, natural, naturopath, nutrition, nutritious, pH, pH balance, prevention, pro-health, proactive, vegetables, vitamins, water
Remember back in high school chemistry when you learned about acid/alkaline balance, also referred to as the body’s pH (“potential Hydrogen” or “powers of Hydrogen”)? Our pH is measured on a scale from 0 to 14, with 7.35 being neutral (normal), below 7.35 is acidic (with 0 being the most acidic) and above 7.35 is alkaline (with 14 being the most alkaline phbalance).
Hydrogen is both a proton and an electron. If the electron is stripped off, then the resulting positive ion is a proton. In short, it is important to note that alkaline substances (also called “bases”) are proton “acceptors” (“+” charge) while acids are proton “donors” (“-” charge). Since bases have a higher pH, they have a greater potential to absorb hydrogen ions and vice versa for acids.
In chemistry, we know that water (H2O) decomposes into hydrogen ions (H+) and hydroxyl ions (OH-). When a solution contains more hydrogen ions than hydroxyl ions, then it is said to be acid. When it contains more hydroxyl ions than hydrogen ions, then it is said to be alkaline. As you may have guessed, a pH of 7.35 is neutral because it contains equal amounts of hydrogen ions and hydroxyl ions.
Over 70% of our bodies are water. When cells create energy via aerobic respiration, they burn oxygen and glucose. In simple terms, in order for the body to create energy it requires massive amounts of hydrogen. As a matter of fact, each day your body uses about ½ pound of pure hydrogen. Even our DNA is held together by hydrogen bonds and since the pH of bases is higher, they have a greater potential to absorb hydrogen, which results in more oxygen delivered to the cells.
The hydrogen ion concentration varies over 14 powers of 10, thus a change of one pH unit changes the hydrogen ion concentration by a factor of 10. The pH scale is a common logarithmic scale. For those of you who never liked math, what this means is that a substance which has a pH of 5.2 is 10 times more acidic than a substance with a pH of 6.2, while it is 100 (10 squared) times more acidic than a substance with a pH of 7.2, and it is 1,000 (10 cubed) times more acidic than a substance with a pH of 8.2, etc…
Our blood must always maintain a pH of approximately 7.35 so that it can continue to transport oxygen. Thus, God has made our bodies resilient with the ability to self-correct in the event of an imbalanced pH level through a mechanism called the buffer system. In chemistry, a buffer is a substance which neutralizes acids, thus keeping the pH of a solution relatively constant despite the addition of considerable amounts of acids or bases. However, the American diet (United States) being full of junk foods, fast foods, processed foods, and sodas, puts the body through “the ringer” in order to maintain the proper pH in the blood. Although our bodies typically maintain alkaline reserves which are utilized to buffer acids in these situations, it is safe to say that many of us have depleted our reserves.
When our buffering system reaches overload and we are depleted of reserves, the excess acids are dumped into the tissues. As more and more acid is accumulated, our tissues begin to deteriorate. The acid wastes oxidize (“rust”) the veins and arteries and begin to destroy cell walls and organs. Having an acidic pH is like driving your car with the “check engine” light on. It’s a sign that something is wrong with the engine and if we don’t get it fixed, then eventually the car will break down.
According to Keiichi Morishita in his book, Hidden Truth of Cancer, as the blood becomes acidic, the body deposits acidic substances into cells to remove them from the blood. This allows the blood to remain slightly alkaline. However, it causes the cells to become acidic and toxic. Over time, many of these cells increase in acidity and some die. However, some of these acidified cells adapt to the new environment. In other words, instead of dying (as normal cells do in an acidic environment) some cells survive by becoming abnormal cells. These abnormal cells are called “malignant” cells, and they do not correspond with brain function or the DNA memory code. Therefore, malignant cells grow indefinitely and without order. This is cancer.
Putting too much acid in your body is like putting poison in your fish tank. Several years ago, we purchased a fish tank and a couple of goldfish for our children. After killing both goldfish, we quickly learned that the key factor in keeping fish alive is the condition of the water. If their water isn’t balanced, then they die quickly. We also learned that you can kill a fish rapidly if you feed it the wrong foods! Now, compare this to the condition of our internal “fish tank.” Many of us are filling our fish tanks with chemicals, toxins, and the wrong foods which lower our pH balance, and an acidic pH results in oxygen deprivation at the cellular level.
So, what other things can we do to keep our tissue pH in the proper range? The easiest thing is to eat mostly alkaline foods. The general rule of thumb is to eat 20% acid foods and 80% alkaline foods. Fresh fruit juice also supplies your body with a plethora of alkaline substances. You can take supplements, such as potassium, cesium, magnesium, calcium, and rubidium, which are all highly alkaline.
Some excellent alkaline-forming foods are as follows: most raw vegetables and fruits, figs, lima beans, olive oil, honey, molasses, apple cider vinegar, miso, tempeh, raw milk, raw cheese, stevia, green tea, most herbs, sprouted grains, sprouts, wheat grass, and barley grass.
Foods such as yogurt, kefir, and butter are basically neutral. Several acid-forming foods are as follows: sodas, coffee, alcohol, chocolate, tobacco, aspartame, meats, oysters, fish, eggs, chicken, pasteurized milk, processed grains, sugar, peanut butter, beans, and pasta.