Author Topic: Breast Screening - No Evidence of Benefit (Read 598 times)

Maizar · « **on:** June 11, 2013, 02:47:05 AM »

This refers to a 40 year study conducted by Oxford University on NHS patients:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10111562/Breast-cancer-screening-fails-to-cut-deaths.html

Quote

Screening for breast cancer does not cut the chance of dying from the disease, a study claims.

The examination of 40 years of UK data produced ‘no evidence’ there was a greater fall in death rates in women who underwent mammograms.

In fact, the age group that showed the steepest fall in mortality rates were the under 40s – who are not eligible for the regular X-ray check-ups.

However, under 40's are very unlikely to have breast cancer. The breast screening program has been a huge money spinner for radiology labs and pharmaceutical companies.

Quote

Stress suffered by women in high-flying jobs increases their risk of developing breast cancer, a study claims.

Those at the top of their profession for 15 years or more have a 72 per cent higher chance of developing the disease – or 57 per cent for those slightly further down the career ladder.

Even taking account of risk factors such as delayed motherhood or more regular alcohol consumption, women in top jobs were still 59 per cent more likely to receive a cancer diagnosis than housewives.

The study by Pennsylvania State University tracked the health of 4,000 women who were in their 30s in the mid-1970s, and partly blamed stress factors such as prejudice and discrimination. Researchers say the same factors may still be relevant today.

Breakthrough Breast Cancer said the link between work stress and cancer was ‘highly speculative’. Pressures can lead to ‘unhealthy choices’ such as overeating and drinking alcohol, said a spokesman.

The article is biased, because it cannot handle the truth. Stress does cause cancer because it raises cortisol levels, promotes binge eating and impairs sleep. All of these things impair the immune system which encourages cancer.

The NHS is a good example of centralized healthcare that fails because of an over-reliance on poorly conducted medical science.

Nadir · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2013, 03:18:16 AM »

Quote

Even taking account of risk factors such as delayed motherhood or more regular alcohol consumption,

Apart from delayed motherhood per se being a risk factor, certain methods of delaying motherhood add to the risk, namely procured abortion and contraception, but you are unlikely to read this in a mainstrem "news"paper.

Nadir · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2013, 03:24:22 AM »

And what about the irradiation that occurs in the use of mammograms? I'm sure that it's not beneficial. What is the correlation of incidence of breast cancer to the number of mammograms a woman subjects herself to?

As for me I decline.

Maizar · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2013, 03:43:52 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

And what about the irradiation that occurs in the use of mammograms? I'm sure that it's not beneficial. What is the correlation of incidence of breast cancer to the number of mammograms a woman subjects herself to?

As for me I decline.

It's extremely low dose radiation, less than you get from living at altitude, or flying in an airplane. The amount of tissue to penetrate is only a few inches thick at most, there is no bone, so the dose is tiny.

But I won't be recommending it in future as a routine thing.

Nadir · « **Reply #4 on:** June 11, 2013, 06:12:16 PM »

Quote from: Maizar

Quote from: Nadir

But I won't be recommending it in future as a routine thing.

The risk of getting cancer from a screening mammogram is considered to be very low,according to mainstream health professionals.

I don't take any tests that are "routine".

I am curious: Are you in a position to recommend it in a professional capacity?