No good breast imaging clinic will tell you mammograms are 100% accurate. They know that the only way to determine cancer is through a biopsy. Everything else is a guess. Everything else, full stop. So, you either ignore the problem, get a mammogram or other
image (MRI, ultrasound, thermogram) or you biopsy every darn mass in there (VERY bad idea for reasons I can explain if anyone is interested and nobody would do that!)
The link shows an article. I'll comment on a few of its statements.
"One thing that was ignored in the report is the fact that there is considerable conjecture on whether mammograms are actually causing breast cancer. Health experts and even many medical professionals claim they do more harm than good, not only because of the
inaccurate readings, but by irradiating the breasts when testing, the possibility of cancer is
greatly increased."
All these studies are in vitro, not in vivo. Yes, if you put some breast cells in a petri dish and irradiate them, you'll get changes. But you can probably do the same with any number of other foods, for that matter. All x-rays are bad. We know that. Nobody wants to
continually subject a person to radiation. However, if you forego screening and you have a family history of breast cancer and/or some symptoms like lumps, you may be taking a greater risk than the radiation.
"A survey reported in the prestigious Lancet Journal in 2006 claimed it took eight years before breast cancer could definitely be diagnosed and by then it was too late as the cancer had already spread."
No way did it say that. Too late? Well, then we'd have 100% mortality, wouldn't we? This kind of statement is just plain irresponsible.
"The scare campaign promoted by the medical profession and the drug companies has resulted in 22% of women in the UK genuinely considering a double mastectomy in case
they developed a problem. How insane is that?"
No insane if they are BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive, which I suspect is what they are talking about here. Again, dreadful reporting and frankly this article is scare-mongering itself.
"As always prevention is the true answer, correct nutrition, and natural herbs, plenty of sunlight, exercise, eliminating stress and empowering yourself with information."
Good advice, and I'm not against any of this, but be careful with those herbs. Some of them are estrogenic which means that in the case of those who would develop an estrogen senstive cancer they would be contributing to the problem.
Thermograms are useful if you are worried about radiation. But again, it depends on who reads it. Mammos and ultrasound have their place and are useful tools, used responsibly. I would go someplace with good technology and get the reading by a breast imaging specialist. If you get an ultrasound ask questions while the exam is being given.
Marti
robert-blau@... wrote:
> Health: How Accurate Is Your Mammogram Reading?
> The National Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium recently published a disturbing in-depth study claiming that the ability of the radiologist who reads mammograms will greatly affect the accuracy of the result. "Obviously when a woman has...
> http://www.naturalnews.com/022729.html
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:cancercured-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:cancercured-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cancercured-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar