There are SO MANY reasons NOT to have a mammogram. Let’s start with the scientific evidence. Jan 8, 2000 Lancet metanalysis asks the question: Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Answer: found in the Interpretation section: “Screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified. If the Swedish trials are judged to be unbiased, the data show that for every 1000 women screened biennially throughout 12 years, one breast-cancer death is avoide, whereas teh total number of deaths is increased by six. If teh Swedish trials are judged to be biased, there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast- cancer mortality.” Lancet 2000; 355:129-34 It also states in conclusion:
“We conclude that screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified.”

I wonder why there doesn’t seem to be any practicing gyns, breast specialists, etc that are reading these journal articles?

Let’s move on. How about the 2002 Annals of Internal Medicine, which looked at the Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: Breast Cancer Mortality after 1-16 years of follow-up. Conclusion: “After 11-16 years of follow-up, four or five annual screenings with mammography, breast physical examination and self-examination had not reduced breast cancer mortality compared with the usual community care after a single breast physical examiantion and instruction on breast self-examination. The study data show that true effects fo 20% or greater are unlikely.” This means that the mammography group, compared with the usual care group, who only did breast self-examination, both found similar numbers of cancer. “At ten years, there were 82 breast-cancer deaths in the mammography group, and 72 in the usual care group.”

Furthermore, to finish up, let’s look at a April 29, 2003 study from Germany, published in PNAS vol 100, No 9 5057-5062, entitled “Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.” Basically, women are told that mammograms are safe, because they are “very low dose radiation.” However, this study shows just the opposite. “Currently the risk estimates for low doses of ionizing radiation are based on empirical linear fits of existing human data determined at high doses. This extrapalation model assumes cells have the capacity to repair IR damage at low doses as they do at high doses. CLEARLY (emphasis added), the data presented here do not support this assumption adn could suggest that a linear extrapalation model significantly underestimates the risk for IR-induced CARCINOGENESIS (emphasis added).

I think that is more than enough reason to STOP doing mammography. Especially when there is an FDA approved screening tool that has been approved since 1982: Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. The FDA’s best kept secret. It is radiation-free, non-contact, painless, and has the ability to see cancerous changes YEARS before it might turn into a tumor.

Of course, thermography is a physiologic exam, so it is best use in conjunction with another structural exam so the two are complementary. Neither should exist without the other. Try a non-invasive ultrasound or breast MRI with a thermal image.

I am working on a new webpage just on breast health. Stay posted.

Blessings,
Linda Perry

Linda, how effective are the other methods you mentioned? I heard about other methods here, http://cancerbitch.blogspot.com/, when she was speaking on NPR, but no real info about them.

Do you think the mammogram decline is because of an increase in use of these other methods, or just a decrease in the number of those getting checked in general?

[...] I bet, statistically speaking (he said will all due irony) that not everyone can get or wants a mammogram, I think it’s a possibility to do regularly for many more people than currently [...]