9:18 AM
ari sari
Might this be a blow to the massive breast cancer industry if further study proves this finding.
If you follow this blog (4 pages of articles) and the long standing material found at www.leaflady.org you will know we stand behind the facts of mammogram as a cause of breast cancer.
We have been educating the public, and especially women, on this issue for at least 20 years. Our information has come from the 1960s HHS/FDA/CDC and other data provided to us during the years we worked in concert with the eminent researcher John Gofman, PhD, MD.
While others are claiming to be first up with the data we stand on our track record.
The data against mammogram has been known since the 1960s by the US government health agencies. Almost 50 years later the same campaign runs rampant.
In Spokane a woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer (I'd like to see that proof)was put through six rounds of standard treatemnt (SOP) including chemotherapy. She now has leukemia.
She prbably was never told that chemo is a causative factor for leukemia, and as the local news report stated, she has been fighting for months with insurance over a bone marrow transplant that could save her life.
This is SOP for insurers who manipulate their data to stave off treaments and payouts, even if it leads to death.
Had the TV station not gotten involved, the insurance company might not ever had started to back peddle on its denial scheme and approve treatment.
Of course the treatment is costly and of course the woman has, more likely than not, failed to be advised that IV vitamin C, B12 shots, thyroid support, T cell support and iodine just might help her out, along with solid nutriton and other natural therapy tailored for her situation; most aimed at correcting the deficiencies and damage caused by the exccessive chemo. And is she was treated at the Sokane area cancer center she probably was overloaded on chips and candy they offer during the chemo sessions that only feeds the cancer.
And you do have to ask, once again, did she really have it. And was she given all the information or even a chance for healing.
But then the woman most likele was never told mammogram causes breast cancer and the treatment statistics are so bad that it takes screening of 1,200 women for 14 years to save one life from breast cancer while during that time scores would suffer anxiety, surgery and mastectomies, chemo or radiation for suspicious lumps that turned out to be benign.http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2008/04/still-covering-up-risks-after-all-these.html
This new Norwegian study may support the 1970s data.
The researchers said their findings provide new insight on what is "arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."
By Michael Kahn
LONDON (Reuters) - Researchers who tracked breast cancer rates in Norwegian women proposed the controversial notion on Monday that some tumors found with mammograms might otherwise naturally disappear on their own if left undetected.
But leading cancer experts expressed doubt about the findings and urged women to continue to get regular mammograms, saying this screening technique unquestionably saves lives by finding breast cancer early on when it is most treatable.
Dr. Per-Henrik Zahl of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo and Norwegian and U.S. colleagues examined invasive breast cancer rates among nearly 120,000 women age 50 to 64 who had a mammogram -- an X-ray of the breast used to find evidence of cancer -- every two years over a six-year period.
They compared the number of breast cancers detected with another group of about 110,000 Norwegian women of the same age and similar backgrounds who were screened just once at the end of the six-year period.
The researchers said they expected to find no differences in breast cancer rates but instead found 22 percent more invasive breast tumors in the group who had mammograms every two years.
This raises the possibility that some cancers somehow disappear naturally, although there is no biological reason to explain how this might be, according to Zahl, whose findings were published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
"We are the first ones to publish such a theory," Zahl said in a telephone interview. "What we say is many cancers must spontaneously disappear or regress because we cannot find them at later screenings. I have no biological explanation for this."
Mammography and breast self-examination for tumors are standard methods used for early detection of breast cancer, the leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide.
The American Cancer Society estimated that about 465,000 women die of breast cancer globally each year, and 1.3 million new cases are diagnosed.
"I think generally when we look at studies like this it is important to keep in mind there are some studies that change practice and others that make us think a little bit more, said Dr. Eric Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
"The idea that somehow these cancers go away entirely is, I would say, an intriguing hypothesis, but one we don't have a lot of evidence to support," said Winer, who was speaking on behalf of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
In much of Europe women undergo mammograms every two years after age 50 except for in Britain where it is every three years, Zahl said. The American Cancer Society recommends that women get an annual mammogram beginning at age 40.
Bob Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society, said Zahl's team misinterpreted the data, and expressed doubt about the idea that a significant number of breast tumors "spontaneously regress."
"I imagine there are still some people who believe the Earth is flat, but there are not very many of them," Smith said in a telephone interview. "It's not usual -- it happens every day that research is published that gets it wrong."
The researchers acknowledged many doctors might be skeptical of the idea but they cited 32 reported cases of a breast cancer regressing, a small number for such a common disease.
The researchers said their findings provide new insight on what is "arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."
(additional reporting by Julie Steenhuysen; Editing by Will Dunham and Angus MacSwan)
© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4AO03H20081125
Posted in: 
0 comments:
Post a Comment