MAMMOGRAPHY TRUTHS AND LAPDOG JOES

Which Mammography Truth Would You Prefer?
How Many Lives Saved? Zero to Two Percent

For decades, people have had several choices in “mammography truths.” Even a cursory look at articles on screening mammography in the news media—The New York Times, C-Span, CNN, and others—attest to the diversity, uncertainty, and confusion. Such reports always omit what I consider to be the single most important element in this discussion: Nearly ninety percent of my patients with breast cancer detected their own tumor lumps— not their doctors, not mammograms, not ultrasound scans, not MRI scans. Nor do such reports seriously address the problem of the biologic cost of unnecessary breast biopsies done for false mammogram readings or breast disease and cancers caused by annual and cumulative radiation. Here is the range of mammography truths:

☞ First, people can accept the truth of those who profit from mammography. This is the most widely accepted truth and is easy to understand since the profit-makers (the all-powerful radiology mega-industry) have the most dollars for advertising their truth and influencing lapdog Joes (journalistic lapdogs who are too tired to dig the scientific facts on their own). They, mammography profiteers, recommend annual screening mammography and commonly require more than one mammograms during the year in many cases. They show little, if any, interest in the dangers of yearly and cumulative exposures to radiation. They do not want to know how such radiation may contribute to the development of breast cancer.
☞ Second, there is the truth of diligent record keepers—scientists from Scandinavia have been most diligent—which is most ignored because these workers have no dollars for ads. Their truth is that lives saved by routine mammography in various large long-term studies range from zero percent to two percent.
☞ Third, there is the voice of American pathologists—in reality no voice at all—that expresses little more than reluctant compliance. Privately, most pathologists who carefully review the mammography literature come up empty-handed. However, opposing radiologists is tedious for pathologists since pathology and radiology are seen as sister-specialities in hospitals. Why enter a controversy that yields nothing but can cause much grief?
☞ Fourth, there is the truth of government panels comprising various medical specialities and statistics scientists. They consistently express serious doubts about the value of screening and point out the cost of false results in terms of fear, unnecessary biopsies, and resource utilization.
☞ Fifth, there is the truth of the “unheard truths” of women who discover their breast cancers after they are given false security of negative mammograms. Such women never make the pages of the newspaper that prints all the news that’s fit to print.
☞ Sixth, there is the truth of the loud voices of women who extol the benefits of mammograms in the belief that their tumors could not have been detected by any other means—an argument which has validity but in a very small number of cases.
☞ Seventh, there is my truth: Why do doctors, the American Cancer Society, and breast cancer activists NOT focus on teaching effective breast self-examination so women can detect their cancers early. I point out that surgical removal of Stage 1 breast cancer offers women an over 98 percent chance of ridding themselves of the cancer forever. I present my program for reducing the probability of developing new breast cancer in my 2-DVD video seminar entitled “Breast Health and Cancer” available at www.1800-633-6226.com

Ignore-Breast-Examine-Ribs (IBER) Breast Self-examination

I strongly urge women to learn well and practice my Ignore-Breast-Examine-Ribs (IBER) method of breast self-examination. This method significantly increases early detect of cancerous breast lumps, which feel like hard rocks under rugs and are not painful. By contrast, benign cysts and inflammation (with or without calcium deposits) in the breast are tender on pressure. A full description of the IBER method appears at:

http://www.ethicsinmedicine.us/iber_self-exam_castor_rub.htm

Conspiracy Against the Public

“Watch out for American radiologists when they set mammography standards,” wrote Adam Smith in the year Americans signed their Declaration of Independence. O.K., he did not pen those words. But he might as well have. Consider the following from his book The Wealth of Nations (1776): “[When} people of the same trade seldom meet together . . . the conversation end[s] in a conspiracy against the public.”

In 2010, the Preventive Services Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of published data on mammography and recommended that:

☞ Routine screening mammography begin at the age of 50 years; and
☞ Screening mammograms be performed every other year.

What happened next was what Adam Smith understood well. The radiology mega-industry immediately denounced the panel’s conclusions as government rationing—breast radiologists were most vociferous, surprise! surprise!—and claimed that the panel members had ignored the medical evidence, and accused the them of a callous disregard for the life and well-being of women. The words of a prominent breast radiologist are noteworthy: “Basically, [the panel] said nothing is good. Just wait until it breaks through your skin. . . .” (Quoted by The New England Journal of Medicine, September 9, 2010).

Radiologists are robustly vocal when they speak about lives saved by mammograms but deafeningly silent on the matter of death related to mammograms. When their spokesperson—trade unionists, to be clear—push annual mammogams for women over 40 years of age or older, they never compute the total dose of radiation administered during the remaining four or five decades of women’s lives. Nor do they publish estimates of deaths from cancers caused by such exposure. They insist that radiation in their hands is safe. Should we really expect anyone to declare his equipment unsafe after he has invested a million or more dollars in it?

Mammography Saves 2 Percent to Zero Percent Lives

In 1996, Norway began doing yearly mammograms for all women 50 to 69 years of age. Special breast cancer teams treated all women with breast cancer according to the accepted protocols. The results showed that the effect of mammograms alone could be as low as 2 percent or even zero.

In September, 2010, The New England Journal of Medicine reported data of some selected studies that challenged the widely held belief that mammograms save lives. This is how The New York Times commented on the study: “The study data indicated that the effect of mammograms alone could be as low as 2 percent or even zero.” Regrettably, the Times neutered its position by giving equal weight to the self-serving positions of radiologists. Here is one example: “Dr. Carol Lee, a radiologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and chairwoman of the Breast Imaging Commission of the American College of Radiology, said the new study affirmed that mammography saves lives.”

Mammography Profiteers and Journalistic Lap Dogs

We live in the age of fear. Merchants of medicine count on the selling power of fear. Mammography profiteers know the riches to be made by pushing on TV the isolated real or fictitious cases that show the value of mammograms. For every woman who is paid dollars to promote mammograms on TV, these profiteers bar from the news media hundreds of women hurt, directly or indirectly, by mammograms. The journalists in this matter have been largely lap dogs, not watchdogs.

How can people counter the all-powerful corporate radiology? The only valid answer is to learn the facts about mammography, take responsibility for your health, do monthly the IBER (Ignore-Breast-Examine-Ribs) self breast examination, and consider the necessary nutritional, environmental, and ethical changes to reduce the probability of developing breast cancer.

Should Mammography be Abolished?

No. In some cases, mammography is helpful in resolving important questions. However, the use of mammography for individuals with specific reasons for doing the procedure and for limited periods of time is altogether different from subjecting all women to annual radiation. Mammograms are usually painful, create much fear before the procedure, and lead to unnecessary surgical procedures in a disturbing number of cases. There are few, if any, certainties in life. It is neither rational nor ethical for a medical speciality to use an uncertainty to push its agenda. Indeed, in my view, radiology should abstain from setting standards for screening mammography. Society can delegate this responsibility to groups of experienced and knowledgeable family practitioners, surgeons, pathologists, and statisticians.

In the matter of mammography, women need knowledgeable, thoughtful, and ethical physicians to guide them on an individualized basis.