The modern medical establishment has convinced most doctors and women of the usefulness of regular breast mammograms, however many people are unaware that the practice remains very controversial.
While it’s true that receiving a breast mammogram, which is essentially an x-ray, does have the ability to save some women from deadly breast cancer, the reality is that there are far more disadvantages to the practice than advantages. Skeptical? I was too, but the proof is clear if you do a little research: breast mammograms may actually harm women rather than help them.
Here are five facts about breast mammograms that every woman should be aware of before receiving one of these potentially dangerous screenings:
Fact #1
Doctors often praise mammography as a technique for detecting the early signs of breast cancer in women. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In reality, once breast cancer has gotten to the point where it can be detected using these x-rays, it has already been present for around eight years. Eight years! That is hardly an early detection system.
Fact #2
Every woman that has received a screening knows that mammography involves a very tight, painful compression of the breast while being x-rayed. Compressing the breast in this way may very well lead to metastasis, which is the spread of lethal malignant breast cancer cells.
Fact #3
It’s an uncomfortable topic in the medical industry, but the reality is that many treatments and procedures are driven by profiteering and greed. Medical procedures such as breast mammograms are the perfect example, especially taking into account the risks involved and how unreliable they can be.
Fact #4
It is a scientific fact that radiation can lead to the development of cancer. Procedures involving x-rays like mammography expose the body to low doses of radiation. Even small doses can significantly increase the risk of developing breast cancer, particularly in women who have a family history of the disease or a genetic predisposition for it. And those small doses are cumulative, which is a particular concern especially with annual mammography screening.
Fact #5
Many women believe that the cancer detected during mammography screenings is dangerous. The reality is that the cancers detected with these procedures are clinically insignificant. Typically these cancers will regress on their own over time, or simply remain inactive (benign). In other words, they do not need to be treated.
Even after reading these facts, many women remain skeptical, which is understandable because they want to ensure that they are doing everything possible to prevent themselves from falling prey to this deadly disease. The reality is though that breast mammograms are ineffective at best, and at worst, potentially dangerous. Monthly self-examinations are just as effective as annual mammography screenings in detecting the early signs of breast cancer tumors. Moreover, self-examinations do not carry all of the risks that mammography screenings do.
Remember, breast cancer is not a localized problem. Rather it is a systemic disease involving the entire body. Therefore aside from monthly self-examinations, the only true solution to preventing breast cancer is to take charge of your own health, and spend your time and energy on building a solid foundation for a healthy lifestyle from the ground up.
If you enjoyed this article, then make sure you subscribe to my mailing list.
References
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 95th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting: Abstract RO22-04. Presented November 30, 2009. RSNA concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer
Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1995.
Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.
Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer 1992, pp. 49- 52.
National Academy of Sciences- National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D. C., 1972.
Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86( 21): 1571- 1572, 1994.
Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 326( 20): 1357, 1992.
Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338- 346.
Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast compression. Lancet 340: 122, 1992.
Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement feud rages on. Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1.
Vogel, V. G. Screening younger women at risk for breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 16: 55- 60, 1994.
Baines, C. J., and Dayan, R. A tangled web: Factors likely to affect the efficacy of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 91( 10): 833- 838, 1999.
Laya, M. B. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88( 10): 643- 649, 1996.
Spratt, J. S., and Spratt, S. W. Legal perspectives on mammography and self-referral. Cancer 69( 2): 599- 600, 1992.
Skrabanek, P. Shadows over screening mammography. Clin. Radiol. 40: 4- 5, 1989.
Davis, D. L., and Love, S. J. Mammography screening. JAMA 271( 2): 152- 153, 1994.
Christiansen, C. L., et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 20): 1657- 1666, 2000.
Napoli, M. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: The hidden pitfalls of cancer screening. Am. J. Nurs., 2001, in press.
Baum, M. Epidemiology versus scaremongering: The case for humane interpretation of statistics and breast cancer. Breast J. 6( 5): 331- 334, 2000.
Miller, A. B., et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50- 59 years. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 18): 1490- 1499, 2000.
Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis: An under-recognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 16): 1280- 1282, 2000.
Napoli, M. What do women want to know. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr.
11- 13, 1997. 22. Lerner, B. H. Public health then and now: Great expectations: Historical perspectives on genetic breast cancer testing. Am. J. Public Health 89( 6): 938- 944, 1999.
Gotzsche, P. C., and Olsen, O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355: 129- 134, 2000.
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40- 49, January 21- 23, 1997. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 7- 18, 1997.
Ross, W. S. Crusade: The Official History of the American Cancer Society, p. 96. Arbor House, New York, 1987.
Hall, D. C., et al. Improved detection of human breast lesions following experimental training. Cancer 46( 2): 408- 414, 1980.
Smigel, K. Perception of risk heightens stress of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85( 7): 525- 526, 1993.
Baines, C. J. Efficacy and opinions about breast self-examination. In Advanced Therapy of Breast Disease, edited by S. E. Singletary and G. L. Robb, pp. 9- 14. B. C. Decker, Hamilton, Ont., 2000.
Leight, S. B., et al. The effect of structured training on breast self-examination search behaviors as measured using biomedical instrumentation. Nurs. Res. 49( 5): 283- 289, 2000.
Worden, J. K., et al. A community-wide program in breast self-examination. Prev. Med. 19: 254- 269, 1990.
Fletcher, S. W., et al. How best to teach women breast self-examination: A randomized control trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 112( 10): 772- 779, 1990.
Associated Press. FDA approves use of pad in breast exam. New York Times, December 25, 1995, p. 9Y.
Gehrke, A. Breast self-examination: A mixed message. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 14): 1120- 1121, 2000.
Thomas, D. B., et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: Methodology and preliminary results. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89: 355- 365, 1997.
Baines, C. J., Miller, A. B., and Bassett, A. A. Physical examination: Its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 63: 1816- 1822, 1989.
Lewis, T. Women's health is no longer a man's world. New York Times, February 7, 2001, p. 1.
Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., and Wall, C. Correspondence. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93( 5): 396, 2001.
Kuroishi, T., et al. Effectiveness of mass screening for breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer 7( 1): 1- 8, 2000.
Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest "non-profit" institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29( 3): 565- 578, 1999.
Epstein, S. S., and Gross, L. The high stakes of cancer prevention. Tikkun 15( 6): 33- 39, 2000.
Epstein, S. S. The Politics of Cancer Revisited. East Ridge Press, Hankins, N. Y., 1998.
Ramirez, A. Mammogram reimbursements. New York Times, February 19, 2001.
John, L. Digital imaging: A marketing triumph. Breast Cancer Action Newsletter, No. 62, November-December 2000.
Tarkan, L. An update that matters? Mammography's next step is assessed. New York Times, January 2, 2001, p. D5.
Miller, A. B. The role of screening in the fight against breast cancer. World Health Forum 13: 277- 285, 1992.
Mittra, I. Breast screening: The case for physical examination without mammography. Lancet 343( 8893): 342- 344, 1994.
Greenlee, R. T. Cancer Statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J. Clin. 51( 1): 15- 36, 2001.
Leslie Freeman, ed., Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out, New York: Norton, 1982, p. 27
