No Tests Best for Breasts
Mammograms & MRI cause breast cancer, groundbreaking research declares
by S. L. Baker
Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a look, finally, at the scientific evidence and announced new recommendations earlier this month for routine mammograms -- specifically that women under 50 should avoid them and women over 50 should only get them every other year -- the reactions from many women, doctors and the mainstream media have reached the point of near hysteria (http://www.naturalnews.com/027558_mammograms_cancer_industry.html ). Not getting annual mammograms, some say, means countless women will receive a virtual death sentence because their breast tumors won't be discovered. But what is rarely discussed about mammograms is this: the tests could actually be causing many cases of breast cancer.
In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age -- as early as 25 -- and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don't have breast cancer in their family trees.
"For women at high risk for breast cancer, screening is very important, but a careful approach should be taken when considering mammography for screening young women, particularly under age 30," Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, said in a statement to the media. "Further, repeated exposure to low-dose radiation should be avoided."
Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and colleagues analyzed peer-reviewed, published medical research to investigate whether low-dose radiation exposure affects breast cancer risk among high-risk women. Out of the six studies included in this analysis, four looked at the effect of exposure to low-dose radiation among breast cancer gene mutation carriers. The other two studies traced the impact of radiation on women with a family history of breast cancer. The researchers took the combined data from all these research projects and then calculated odds ratios to estimate the risk of breast cancer caused by radiation.
The results? All the high-risk women in the study who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had an increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women who had not been exposed to low-dose radiation. What's more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before the age of 20 or who had five or more exposures to low-dose radiation were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.
Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer. "Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted," Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said in the press statement.
In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age -- as early as 25 -- and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don't have breast cancer in their family trees.
"For women at high risk for breast cancer, screening is very important, but a careful approach should be taken when considering mammography for screening young women, particularly under age 30," Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, said in a statement to the media. "Further, repeated exposure to low-dose radiation should be avoided."
Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and colleagues analyzed peer-reviewed, published medical research to investigate whether low-dose radiation exposure affects breast cancer risk among high-risk women. Out of the six studies included in this analysis, four looked at the effect of exposure to low-dose radiation among breast cancer gene mutation carriers. The other two studies traced the impact of radiation on women with a family history of breast cancer. The researchers took the combined data from all these research projects and then calculated odds ratios to estimate the risk of breast cancer caused by radiation.
The results? All the high-risk women in the study who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had an increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women who had not been exposed to low-dose radiation. What's more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before the age of 20 or who had five or more exposures to low-dose radiation were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.
Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumor detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer. "Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted," Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said in the press statement.
The mammogram scam exposed
Incredibly, although it is rarely reported in the mainstream media, the new study follows on the heels of several others that have already sounded the warning that mammograms may cause breast cancer. For example, NaturalNews covered a Johns Hopkins study published earlier this year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_cancer_brst_cancer_mammograms.html ) that warned radiation exposure from annual mammograms could trigger breast malignancies in women with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers who have altered genes (identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2).
And it may not be only women with a familial risk for breast cancer who are at extra risk from mammography radiation. As NaturalNews covered last year, a report published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html ).
And it may not be only women with a familial risk for breast cancer who are at extra risk from mammography radiation. As NaturalNews covered last year, a report published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html ).
Comments by the Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com
Mammogram pushers now have nothing left to stand on. The complete and utter hoax of mammography has now been wholly discredited through a flurry of groundbreaking studies performed by conventional medicine researchers! Yes, even the industry's own former advocates now admit mammography harms far more women than it helps.
Why? Because mammography causes the very disease it claims to "detect". It's much like a clever sleight-of-hand magician's trick where they reach for your ear and suddenly produce a coin that was presumably hidden there. But as everybody knows, they put it there themselves! Mammograms offer a similar kind of sleight-of-hand trick (or sleight-of-breast, as the case may be) by actually generating the very disease they claim to find. If so many women hadn't already been harmed by mammography, the whole thing would be quite hysterical.
"Early detection saves lives," they say. Except they stupidly forget to tell women the other side of the story: "Mammograms cause cancer." And if you're gullible enough to actually irradiate your breasts every year, don't be surprised -- shocked! -- if they someday find tumors in them.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/mammography.html
Why? Because mammography causes the very disease it claims to "detect". It's much like a clever sleight-of-hand magician's trick where they reach for your ear and suddenly produce a coin that was presumably hidden there. But as everybody knows, they put it there themselves! Mammograms offer a similar kind of sleight-of-hand trick (or sleight-of-breast, as the case may be) by actually generating the very disease they claim to find. If so many women hadn't already been harmed by mammography, the whole thing would be quite hysterical.
"Early detection saves lives," they say. Except they stupidly forget to tell women the other side of the story: "Mammograms cause cancer." And if you're gullible enough to actually irradiate your breasts every year, don't be surprised -- shocked! -- if they someday find tumors in them.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/mammography.html
From NATURAL NEWS @ http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_brst_cancer.html#ixzz16llG47MW
New nuclear imaging technology causes breast cancer
Over and over, women are pushed to have mammograms in order to detect breast cancer. But you rarely hear about the research that shows these tests, which expose breast tissue to radiation, may actually cause breast cancer. For example, as NaturalNews has covered previously, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) last winter conclusively showed that low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to the disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_brst_cancer.html ). But, thankfully, the newest technology such as nuclear-based breast imaging exams must be designed to be safer, right?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, according to a report just published in the journal Radiology, some nuclear-based breast imaging exams increase a woman's risk of developing radiation-induced cancer. And not just a little. If you thought the risk from mammograms was worrisome, wait until you hear how dangerous breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) or positron emission mammography (PEM) examinations are: one single BSGI or PEM carries a lifetime risk of inducing fatal cancer that is far greater than the cancer risk associated with having annual screening mammograms starting at age 40.
Specifically, a single BSGI exam is estimated to cause the lifetime risk of terminal cancer to soar 20 to 30 time over that of digital mammography in women aged 40 and up, while the lifetime fatal risk of cancer caused by only one PEM is 23 times greater than that of digital mammography. What's more, BSGI and PEM may increase the risk of not only breast cancer but also malignancies in other organs, too -- including the intestines, kidneys, bladder, gallbladder, uterus, ovaries and colon.
That's the conclusion of the study's author, R. Edward Hendrick, Ph.D., who is clinical professor of radiology at the University of Colorado-Denver School of Medicine in Aurora, Colorado. In order to estimate the lifetime risk of radiation-induced cancer incidence and death from breast imaging exams using ionizing radiation, Dr. Hendrick used recent studies on radiation doses from radiologic procedures and organ doses from nuclear medicine procedures and Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII age-dependent risk data.
He found that two-view digital mammography and screen-film mammography have an average lifetime risk of causing fatal breast cancer of 1.3 and 1.7 cases, respectively, per 100,000 women aged 40 years at exposure and less than one case per one million in women who are 80 or older at exposure. However, he found that mammography, either digital or screen-film, performed annually in women from age 40 to age 80, is associated with causing fatal breast cancer in 20 to 25 cases out of 100,000 women.
While the risks and benefits of screening mammography are finally coming under the scrutiny of researchers, newer breast imaging technologies, such as BSGI and PEM, have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are now being used in clinical practice as if they were safe. According to a media statement, preliminary studies have shown these tests to be promising at detecting cancer. However, they both involve injecting potentially cancer-causing radioactive substances into women's bodies.
BSGI uses an injection of a nuclear radiotracer, which is absorbed at a higher rate by cancerous cells so a malignancy can be spotted and photographed with a gamma camera. For PEM, a radioactive substance is injected into the body to measure metabolic activity that supposedly detects the presence of cancer.
Other technologies, not yet approved by the FDA, seem destined to be used on women's breasts in upcoming years, too -- including dedicated breast CT and digital breast tomosynthesis. So far, studies have found these newer tests also cause breast cancer in some women. They have an average lifetime risk of fatal breast cancer of 1.3 to 2.6 cases, respectively, per 100,000 women 40 years of age at exposure.
Dr. Hendrick, like most physicians involved in mainstream medicine, remains a proponent of screening mammography. But he points out that women can reduce their risk from the tests by making sure they have digital mammograms which, on average, expose patients to a lower radiation dose than the screen-film type mammograms. He also pointed out in a statement to the media that women under 40 who are known to be at higher risk of breast cancer should consider being screened with breast ultrasound or breast MRI -- both of these tests involve no ionizing radiation exposure and have sensitivities to breast cancer that are unaffected by higher breast density.
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20736332
From Natural News @ http://www.naturalnews.com/029749_nuclear_imaging_breast_cancer.html#ixzz16lnKoETx
Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, according to a report just published in the journal Radiology, some nuclear-based breast imaging exams increase a woman's risk of developing radiation-induced cancer. And not just a little. If you thought the risk from mammograms was worrisome, wait until you hear how dangerous breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) or positron emission mammography (PEM) examinations are: one single BSGI or PEM carries a lifetime risk of inducing fatal cancer that is far greater than the cancer risk associated with having annual screening mammograms starting at age 40.
Specifically, a single BSGI exam is estimated to cause the lifetime risk of terminal cancer to soar 20 to 30 time over that of digital mammography in women aged 40 and up, while the lifetime fatal risk of cancer caused by only one PEM is 23 times greater than that of digital mammography. What's more, BSGI and PEM may increase the risk of not only breast cancer but also malignancies in other organs, too -- including the intestines, kidneys, bladder, gallbladder, uterus, ovaries and colon.
That's the conclusion of the study's author, R. Edward Hendrick, Ph.D., who is clinical professor of radiology at the University of Colorado-Denver School of Medicine in Aurora, Colorado. In order to estimate the lifetime risk of radiation-induced cancer incidence and death from breast imaging exams using ionizing radiation, Dr. Hendrick used recent studies on radiation doses from radiologic procedures and organ doses from nuclear medicine procedures and Biologic Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII age-dependent risk data.
He found that two-view digital mammography and screen-film mammography have an average lifetime risk of causing fatal breast cancer of 1.3 and 1.7 cases, respectively, per 100,000 women aged 40 years at exposure and less than one case per one million in women who are 80 or older at exposure. However, he found that mammography, either digital or screen-film, performed annually in women from age 40 to age 80, is associated with causing fatal breast cancer in 20 to 25 cases out of 100,000 women.
While the risks and benefits of screening mammography are finally coming under the scrutiny of researchers, newer breast imaging technologies, such as BSGI and PEM, have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are now being used in clinical practice as if they were safe. According to a media statement, preliminary studies have shown these tests to be promising at detecting cancer. However, they both involve injecting potentially cancer-causing radioactive substances into women's bodies.
BSGI uses an injection of a nuclear radiotracer, which is absorbed at a higher rate by cancerous cells so a malignancy can be spotted and photographed with a gamma camera. For PEM, a radioactive substance is injected into the body to measure metabolic activity that supposedly detects the presence of cancer.
Other technologies, not yet approved by the FDA, seem destined to be used on women's breasts in upcoming years, too -- including dedicated breast CT and digital breast tomosynthesis. So far, studies have found these newer tests also cause breast cancer in some women. They have an average lifetime risk of fatal breast cancer of 1.3 to 2.6 cases, respectively, per 100,000 women 40 years of age at exposure.
Dr. Hendrick, like most physicians involved in mainstream medicine, remains a proponent of screening mammography. But he points out that women can reduce their risk from the tests by making sure they have digital mammograms which, on average, expose patients to a lower radiation dose than the screen-film type mammograms. He also pointed out in a statement to the media that women under 40 who are known to be at higher risk of breast cancer should consider being screened with breast ultrasound or breast MRI -- both of these tests involve no ionizing radiation exposure and have sensitivities to breast cancer that are unaffected by higher breast density.
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20736332
From Natural News @ http://www.naturalnews.com/029749_nuclear_imaging_breast_cancer.html#ixzz16lnKoETx
Images - http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00034/IN4911979Breast_canc_34796t.jpg
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/BreastCancer-Imaging.jpg
http://www.ehealthyland.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/breast_cancer_glossary_291_20081001-110627.jpg
For further enlightenment see –
The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559
This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
It seems so obvious when you think about it, of course radiation is going to be dangerous in a breast already predisposed to cancer...
ReplyDelete