The Mammogram Scam

The dangers of mammograms have been well documented by many independent researchers, physicians, and scientists. These include exposure to toxic levels of radiation, physical trauma to the breast, and shoddy interpretation of the results. According to Dr. John R. Lee, MD: "Since there is no reliable evidence that mammography screening decreases breast cancer mortality, mammography screening for breast cancer is unjustified. This means that physicians should not order mammography screening, and insurance companies and HMOs should not pay for such tests. This conclusion is not as dismal as it might first appear. Mammography screening should be dropped because it does not work to save lives. We get by that hurdle by turning our attention to more promising research. First we must change our thinking to separate cause from effects. The cancer tumor is not the disease; the tumor is the result of an underlying metabolic imbalance. Removing the tumor is not treating the cause; it is merely removing an effect of the disease. If the underlying imbalance is not corrected, the disease has not been treated. When conventional medicine turns its attention to hormonal imbalance, nutrition and the effects of xenoestrogens, progress in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer is far more likely than it is if we continue on with our present fixation on mammograms, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation."

Now we have a study published by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a strong supporter of mammograms, that admits to the glaring incompetence of many radiologists who read and analyze mammogram images.

Despite many questions that surround the wide scale use of mammograms, they are still falsely purported by conventional medicine as the best defense a woman can have against breast cancer. Studies have shown that there are many more mammogram machines being built and installed in this country than the population warrants, even if one incorrectly believes all women over 40 should have an annual mammogram. The trail points to a profit motive that causes deceit and misinformation to abound regarding cancer care of all types, including mammograms. Perhaps the admission by an organization such as the NCI that such serious issues exist in the interpretation of mammograms may help to change the thinking regarding the use of these hazardous procedures.


Mammogram accuracy varies by radiologist
Breast cancer was missed 21 percent of the time, study found
Reuters
updated 3:41 p.m. CT, Tues., Dec. 11, 2007

CHICAGO - Women with lumps in their breasts rely on their radiologists to accurately read their mammograms, but the accuracy of those readings varies widely, U.S. researchers on Tuesday.

Earlier studies found variation in the quality of screening mammograms. But the new research found inconsistencies even when a lump was present, leaving some women open to false positive results or even missed diagnoses, said Diana Miglioretti, a researcher at the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, whose study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Miglioretti and her team evaluated 123 radiologists who looked at 36,000 diagnostic mammograms from 1996 through 2003 at 72 U.S. facilities, including six from Group Health, a nonprofit health maintenance organization in Washington.

They found that sensitivity - the ability to accurately detect cancer - ranged from 27 percent to 100 percent. False positives ranged from 0 to 16 percent.

"On average, 21 percent of breast cancers were missed and 4.3 percent of women underwent a biopsy even though they didn't have breast cancer," Miglioretti said in a telephone interview.

This variability was evident even after accounting for differences in physical characteristics.

Miglioretti said the results surprised her.

"I was expecting diagnostic mammograms to be less variable than screening mammograms," Miglioretti said. Diagnostic mammograms are those performed on women whose initial, screening mammograms led to breast concerns.

The study included data from rural hospitals, where radiologists may not handle a high volume of diagnostic mammograms.

Miglioretti said women might want to consider scheduling diagnostic exams at centers with breast imaging experts. "It might be worth driving the extra hour to find one. It is not always possible," she said.

The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

There will be an estimated 178,000 new cases of breast cancer in the United States this year, with 40,000 deaths.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22205170/