November 20, 2009
don't save lives
After many years of railroading women into getting mammograms every year, the pundits finally backed off their long fostered dogma. And, boy, did it create a stir. In a major study, the government's U.S. Preventive Services Task Force found that doing yearly mammograms for women under 50 has almost no benefit. Worse, it forces women into costly, worthless, and possibly disfiguring procedures. And the pundits are also telling women over 50 that they should reduce their frequency of mammograms to every other year. And get this. They are at last admitting that breast self exams are a waste.
And, guess who is crying foul! The very ones who brought you this bogus screening procedure to begin with - the radiologists. No wonder! Just follow the money trail! They stand to lose billions ($5 billion yearly) if women adopt these suggestions. They are screaming that "tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammogram screenings and these idiots want to do away with it." That was a quote from Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. Take special note of his specialty.
The new report found that every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40 prevented only 0.7 deaths. However, 480 of those 1,000 (48%!) would get a false positive result. And 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies. The computer model study estimated that raising the age of screening to 50 would cut the number of false positives in half. And, it would maintain 81% of the benefits.
I have to ask: "What benefits?" Calling preventing 0.7 deaths per 1,000 women screened a benefit?
Insulin’s Evil Twin
This overlooked hormone might be the real reason you still struggle with out-of-control blood sugar. But most doctors (even alternative doctors) ignore it completely.
Click Here To Learn More
The reason mammograms don't work is because they detect cancer after the fact, it does not prevent. The American Cancer Society, which is in bed with the radiologists, is also crying foul. Why? They have nothing better to offer in their conventional world than "early detection." It gives them something to do. By the time a breast or prostate cancer is large enough for mammography to detect it, it's generally far too late.
I have written repeatedly on the futility of mammography. The pundits are finally coming this way. But slowly. I predict within 20 years, after $100 billion more lifted from the purses of women, that medicine will find little use for mammography. Doctors will, perhaps, finally realize that early detection is garbage compared to prevention.
As for self exams, I agree with the new guidelines. If the lump is palpable, it's sure large enough to have spread. Why worry yourself with all the propaganda from the ACS and orthodox doctors in finding a tumor too late?
I don't recommend mammography at all except in specific circumstances. This is fine. I recommend prevention. If you're so disposed, get a thermogram. It detects temperature changes, which occur years ahead of actual tumor formation, and when you can reverse the degeneration process of cells. If the thermogram is highly suspicious, that's the time for a mammogram. Please see my website for more information on thermography.
Yours for better health and medical freedom,