Mammograms-New Guidelines

A Federal Government Health Panel recently announced new guidelines for routine mammograms for women between age 40 and 50. The panel now no longer recommends annual screening for women in this age group, as research has not shown any benefit.

This announcement has come under fire by several groups including The American Cancer Society, radiologists, breast surgeons and oncologists (all profit from cancer detection and treatment). They claim routine mammograms save lives and we are "throwing women 40-50 under the bus."

Some pundits have even linked this announcement to the health care debate, here comes the rationing of care. While I am not a supporter of any national health care system, the link is coincidental.

I applaud the panels recommendation! It took a lot of guts to come out against conventional wisdom and finally base a recommendation on actual science. I have been telling my female patients for years in this age group to skip the mammograms until menopause.

Why would I do that?

Because research over the last 5-10 years is showing not only are mammograms for this age group ineffective for detecting cancer, it actually causes cancer in this age group! The National Cancer Institute reported that in younger women, mammograms cause 75 cancers for every 15 detected. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) has risen 328% since mammogram screening began, and 200% is directly linked to the radiation exposure of the mammogram.

A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed mammograms had no positive effect on mortality for women age 40-50. In fact the study suggested women in this age group were more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

A 2008 study published in the AMA's Archives of Internal Medicine showed marked increases in cancer rates since the onset of regular screening. But even more astounding is they found many of the cancers detected by mammograms spontaneously regressed!

Mammograms done on pre-menopausal women have a very high incidence of false positive tests, which leads to unnecessary treatment, and stress. There is also a very high incidence of false negative results, meaning many cancers go undetected. For every cancer detected, 4 are missed.

This is a very emotional topic, and tempers can flare when discussing this issue. You will hear of women in their 40's that had their cancer detected by mammograms and claim their life was saved. But when you look at the statistics, yes she was saved, but four other women now have cancer because of the mammogram, three others had false negative tests and 70 women were told they have cancer when they didn't.

The women who survives, should be thankful, and at the same time keep the other 77 women whose lives were adversely affected by mammograms in their prayers.

Cancer Charities

Part 2

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We will be inundated with Cancer Charities raising money to "Find a Cure."

While the cause is noble, the method is severely flawed. Some critics have said these charities do not want to find a cure. If a cure was found, they would be out of a very lucrative job. Less than half the money raised actually goes to research, the rest goes to "Administrative" costs (CEO salary).

I tend to agree with them on this. But what really keeps me from supporting these charities is their lack of funding for any treatment that is not "medical." Some have claimed that these charities are nothing more than a front for major pharmaceutical companies. And when you look at where all the funding goes, it is tough to argue. Every new breakthrough treatment is a DRUG! And every time a new drug is brought out, within 2-3 years it is shown to be ineffective and in some cases more dangerous than the disease it was meant to "Cure." "We cured the cancer, but the patient died."

Along with no money given to alternative health care research, the FDA and other government agencies routinely persecute (yes persecute) alternative treatment providers and clinics. It is seems to be illegal to treat cancer without chemotherapy and radiation. Yet in Europe, Asia, Canada, Mexico and Australia, cancer patients are being cured with non-drug, non-radiation, non-chemo treatments.

Just follow the money. If people in the U.S. were cured of cancer without drugs, radiation, or chemo, who would lose out? Who would be opposed to safe, inexpensive, effective treatments for cancer? Yet we continue to blindly follow the radiation and chemo death march for cancer treatment. Chemo kills more patients than the cancer does.

I will not support these charities until they begin to fund alternative treatment options.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We will be overwhelmed by "Pink" for the next 31 days. Cancer charities will be in full fund raising mode (more on these in Part 2) and women will be "educated" on cancer prevention, detection and treatment.



The big push will be for Mammograms. Conventional wisdom tells us that mammograms catch cancer early, thus save lives. Early detection = Early Treatment = Higher Rate of Survival. While this is good in theory, when actual scientific facts are looked at; Mammograms do not save lives. In fact routine mammograms can cause cancer!



Mammograms are an x-ray of the breast. X-rays are a significant source of damaging radiation exposure. Pre-menopausal breast tissue is very sensitive to radiation exposure. Do you see where I am going with this?



Mammograms have a high incidence of False Positive results. As many as 70% of positive (for tumor) mammograms, upon biopsy, show no presence of cancer. Mammograms also have a high incidence of False Negative results. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms miss 40% of malignant tumors in women age 40-49 and 10 % over age 50.



Pre-menopausal breast tissue is more dense (along with being more sensitive to radiation) so it is much more difficult to see a tumor. Based on the research, many doctors are opposed to routine (annual) mammograms for women under 50. According to the NCI, "among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies."



Since rotine screening with mammograms was introduced, the incidence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) has increased by 328%. Two hundred percent of this increase is due to mammogram radiation,



Mammograms can also spread cancer. By compressing the breasts, tumors and blood vessels can burst, releasing cancer cells throughout the rest of the body.



I professionally do not recommend mammograms as a screening tool, especially for any woman under age 50. Unless a tumor is suspected. An alternative to mammography is Thermography. Thermography uses no radiation, does not compress the breasts and has a higher specificity than mammograms.



The best way to treat cancer is prevention. Diet, exercise and nutrition play an important role. Vitamin D has been shown in research to prevent 77% of all cancers including breast cancer. Avoid smoking, refined sugars and grains, chemical exposure (cosmetics, perfumes, dyes, etc...) eat fresh fruits and vegetables, green tea, lycopene (tomatoes) and other anti-oxidant rich foods.



I encourange your questions and comments.