A new study adds to the confusing questions about mammograms and how many lives they save.
It found that while mammograms do indeed find breast tumors when they are very small and presumably the easiest to treat, widespread breast cancer screening doesn't necessarily lower the overall death rate from breast cancer or even cut back on the number of biggest breast tumors found later.
"We found that counties with the most screening had substantially more breast cancers being diagnosed," said Charles Harding, a Seattle data analyst who worked with a team at Harvard and Dartmouth universities on the study.
About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
I've been saying this for years: "Breast mammograms are largely a waste of time, subjecting thousands of women to cancer-causing radiation and to unnecessary radical medical interventions, including mastectomy, radiation therapy and chemotherapy, due to overdiagnosis".
This view is based on careful reading of the growing body of evidence that these breast screening programmes do more harm than good.
Here is the link to some of the articles I have written.
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
Here's some feedback from a woman who has had a worrying brush with breast disease:
"Hey Gary just have to tell someone - today I got results of my latest thermogram, first one since starting on your treatment and one of the main reasons I contacted you. Prior to this I've had 3 tests, each one I was given a BIRAS 3 and they stressed that I was nearer 4 than 2 and I had to go back every 6 months to keep an eye on what they could see. The reports were lengthy and talked about vascularisation and lymphatic congestion. Anyway, with my family history etc I've been aiming for a BIRAS 2, but I got a 1!! And nothing else to report, they recommended a 2 yearly followup. I'm really pleased.
Many thanks"
(Name withheld)
Gary:
This woman's results are not unusual but I do not go out of my way to shout the results, mainly because it is a touchy subject - women's breasts are a billion dollar industry and there are powerful monopolies of the lucrative breast supply that I would be wise not to antagonise.
An example of inflammation affecting the upper body including breasts. Is the bra a factor?
I won't go into detail about what we did; but the focus was on removing the root cause of most breast disease which is INFLAMMATION!
Guess what comes before the disease:
Inflammation - of course! But there is no money in treating root causes of disease. The real money comes after the horse has bolted. So, it is normal, if, for example, an abnormality is detected on a mammogram, for the woman to be told to go away and wait. It is only when the abnormality has become a life-threatening disease that treatment is offered. Crazy, if you ask me!
How to take positive breast health action
What we do is try to figure out the root causes of any health issues, rather than run around like headless chooks chasing symptoms. So first step is to do a health stock take:
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
The first image shows the vascular changes in the area where she kept her phone tucked into her bra. Not good!
The second image is of one of my clients with painful fibrocystic breast disease affecting her left breast. Incidentally, you will note that this "hot spot" would probably be missed by a mammogram, if she had one. The third image is of her breast a year later, showing the wonderful benefits of the interventions we used with her.
Regardless of age and family history; if you are concerned about the health of your breasts, the first action is to arrange to have a breast thermogram. A thermogram, unlike mammograms, is completely non-invasive and carries absolutely no risk of radiation induced cancer. Thermograms are sophisticated infrared imaging of the breasts. Unlike mammograms, the thermogram is your first tool for detecting inflammation in the breast, your precursor to breast cancer.
Have you ever wondered what comes before the cancer?
NB: Gary Moller has no financial links with the thermogram screening service
About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme:
Click Here!
The next Wellington clinic is August 4th - 8th, and one more this year in November, 24th - 28th. (You can see those dates on ezybook or our clinicalthermography.co.nz website.)
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme:
Click Here!
I thought I'd share a morsel of what I am learning about nutrition and health, including two pieces of compulsory reading to ensure a long and healthy life that is free of disease, including cancer, dementia, heart problems, fatigue, infections and so on and so on.
If you like what you learn please pass this onto your loved ones and get them to act on it, thanks.
Compulsory Reading:
The Iodine Crisis: What You Don't Know About Iodine Can Wreck Your Life
The message in this book applies to all and not just to do with women and mammograms. It is relevant to the message in the iodine book.
If you read just one, it must be the iodine e-book which I recommend you read carefully and then please put into action her recommendations.
I now have in stock full strength Lugol's iodine (4 drips = 1mg). Don't use the watered down iodine which is ineffective. Add to it cofactors which can be in the form of Daily C and Dr Wilson's Super Adrenal Stress Formula and 4,000iu per day of Vitamin D3 (Do not take D2 which can cause toxicity!). I have these here.
(Note: Some of these products, such as full strength iodine, can only be dispensed in NZ by a qualified health professional, so you may require a consultation with me before they can be purchased).
One of the most exciting recent developments for me is the new nutrition science of Systemic Enzymes. Please do your own research into these. It is exciting and the results I am getting with people is gobsmackingly encouraging. There are countless beneficial actions by these enzymes (of which there are thousands within the body). How they work is well researched and understood and their benefits are more potent as we get older and less well:
Of particular interest are the following enzyme preparations which play a role in removing dead tissue, including old scars from deep within the body, reversing damage to muscles, ligaments and joints, smoothing the inner lining of damaged blood vessels, removing old blood clots and so on:
I now have the full range of high quality AST Enzymes here and can help you decide what is the most suitable combination for you and in what dosage. You can buy these online; but getting them from me works out at just about the same, if not better, and you have the bonus of getting my personal input to ensure you are getting it right for your special circumstances.
Enjoy your studies and please give what I am recommending a go, then tell me your conclusions after three months of consistent application.
Hey - Young people, just because you are a fraction my age it does not mean this does not apply to you. Take iodine for example: More than 90% of you are deficient in iodine. Optimising your iodine improves your energy and mental clarity, it protects you from viral and fungal infections, including foul body odour. Your children will be born with an IQ 10-20 points higher than yours (read the e-book). You'll have stronger muscles and smooth, clear skin!
About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme:
Click Here!
The pro mammogram industry is scrambling to shut this study down and get women back to "Business and Usual":
Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial
BMJ2014;348doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g366(Published 11 February 2014)
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g366
Conclusion 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% (106/484) 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 conclusions of the researchers are not good for the breast screening industry: Mammograms are no more effective than physical examinations and there is over-diagnosis and consequent over-treatment of those undergoing mammograms.
These findings would be much worse if they were to take account the increased lifetime risk of developing cancer as a consequence of exposure to harmful xrays from mammograms.
As I said, the breast screening industry and health officials are scrambling to shut this study down. Who is right? Well, what I suggest you do is take some time to carefully read the study, as reported in the BMJ and pay particular attention to the "Related Content" and "Read Responses" tabs and then make up your own mind as to the safety and effectiveness of mammogram screening programmes.
My position on this matter is clear: I do not advocate mass screening of women using xrays. I advocate breast thermogram screening which is totally safe while being effective.
Jun 27, 2013 - Gary Moller: [DipPhEd PGDipRehab PGDipSportMed(Otago)FCE ... Here are the before and after images of thermograms of a woman's breasts ...
Oct 10, 2012 - Gary Moller: [DipPhEd PGDipRehab PGDipSportMed(Otago)FCE Certified ... Our goal is to have thermography used in NZ clinics and hospitals ...
Feb 24, 2014 - Gary: If you have been following recent publicity that mammogramsmay be no more effective than breast self exams in detecting breast cancer, ...
Apr 18, 2012 - Gary Moller: [DipPhEd PGDipRehab PGDipSportMed(Otago)FCE ... They point out that recent studies suggest mammography screening is not ...
May 28, 2013 - FOR decades women have been told that one of the most important things they can do to protect their health is to have regular mammograms.
About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme:
Click Here!
Gary:
If you have been following recent publicity that mammograms may be no more effective than breast self exams in detecting breast cancer, you may be feeling a little confused. The response by those with vested interests in mammograms and all the business that comes downstream from them, is to discredit the research as "Seriously flawed", quoting "independent experts. Please read the two articles below, follow the links and decide for yourself as to who is telling the truth. By the way, its interesting to note the emotive language used in the first article. Words like "denouncing". And are the experts denouncing the study really "independent". Rolf Hefti, in the 2nd article, enlightens us.
Finally, there are safe alternatives to breast x-rays, including the totally non invasive breast thermogram which many of my female clients have had regularly.
Garbage In, Garbage Out: A Flawed Study Cannot Measure the Value of Mammograms
A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
denouncing the value of mammography tore through the news cycle last
week, leading many women to once again question the need for these
breast cancer screenings. What was left out of many of the media reports
are serious doubts about the validity of this study, an oversight that
gives this research far more credibility than it deserves. The effect of
this flawed study is that it is causing considerable confusion that
will ultimately put women's lives at risk.
There are multiple
problems with the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which
independent reviewers of the research have pointed out. One of the most
glaring is the poor quality of the mammograms used in the study, which
were taken in the early 1980s, when the technology was nowhere near as
good as it is today. In fact, even for its time, these mammogram images
were considered below-standard. There have been major advances in
mammography since then, with today's digital mammography providing far
superior images than older technology. This is especially important for
younger women, who tend to have denser breasts and are exactly the group
that was the major focus of this study: women ages 40 to 49.
Mammography
is only as good as the pictures it takes and can only detect cancer if
the image is clear enough to see it. Given that this study was based on
poor-quality pictures, it is irresponsible to make any claims about the
effectiveness of mammograms in saving lives. It would be like evaluating
the current state of auto safety based on cars driven three decades
ago.
There are also serious questions about whether this was a
truly randomized study, which is the gold standard of research and what
this study claims to be. A physical breast exam was done on every woman
before they were assigned to the study group (those who had a mammogram)
and the control group (those who did not). The high rate of women with
detectable cancers who ended up in the mammography group (68 percent)
has raised concerns that women whose cancers were detected in the
initial exam may have been knowingly assigned to the mammography group,
which would skew the results.
Additionally, this study only looked
at the benefit of mammograms on survival -- whether a woman lives or
dies. It does not measure the quality of life of those who have been
diagnosed with cancer. Mammograms allow us to catch a cancer at an early
stage, which can mean avoiding chemotherapy or a mastectomy --
treatments that can be extremely difficult to endure both physically and
mentally. There are important benefits beyond survival that should not
be overlooked in research.
There's no doubt that mammography is
not perfect, but until we have better screening tests and more precise
ways to identify the women who would most benefit from screening and
treatment, Breastcancer.org strongly encourages women to follow current
guidelines: annual mammograms starting at age 40. It could save your
life. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-weiss-md/garbage-in-garbage-out-a-_b_4824005.html
About 10
days ago a new study of mammography got published in the BMJ, formerly
known as the British Medical Journal, that revealed negative findings
about the test.
Practically overnight some very loud defenders of mammography,
such as Harvard radiologist Dr. Kopans, strongly and viciously
discredited the piece of work in a response submission to the BMJ.
I submitted my own response to the editors of the BMJ
specifically dealing, i.e., debunking, Kopans accusations against the
new study as mostly glaring misrepresentations. (So far, Kopans hasn't
sent in to the BMJ a rebuttal of my critique of his allegations against
the new study.)
Other responses poured in at the BMJ. One negative commentary to the new trial I expected to come in was by Dr. Tabar, a
longtime mammogram researcher, because I've discussed some of his studies and dealings in my ebook "The Mammogram Myth".
Anyway, I then worked on a rebuttal of Tabar's bitter assault of
the new "anti-mammogram" study but decided not to submit it to the BMJ.
Instead, I sort of combined my critique of both Kopans and Tabar
in one article, named "The Critique Of The Latest Anti-mammogram Study:
Scientific Or Political?" that now got released at another site.
Reading through it might be instrumental in discovering some of
the fundamental, general workings of the mainstream medical
establishment and medical "science".
You can access the piece from my website's homepage under the
category 'Rolf Hefti's Off-Site Articles: Other Articles By Rolf' or
access the article directly...
HERE
About this website
The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.
Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme:
Click Here!
