Breast Cancer Screening

If ever rational thought without emotion was required in order to properly think about an issue, this is it!

Breast Cancers!

Cancer societies across the world claim victory on the issue of breast cancer. This is because in the 1970s, the survival rate for breast cancer was only 15 %. Along came breast cancer screening. And the cancer survival rates rose to 88 %.

www.cancer.ca... - incident rates / death rates.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Re: costs of treating breast cancer

FANTASTIC - well worth all the money that we donate to the cancer societies

Except there really really is a huge problem with breast cancer screening.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Note the statistics here

For every death, six to ten woman are left mutilated or have a higher risk of cancer due to the toxicity of the cancer treatments that they undertook unnecessarily.

So approximately 5,500 deaths = 33,000 to 55,000 mutilations and unnecessary treatments. The financial costs at roughly 23,000 / case = 7.6 billion if even the low estimate of 33,000 is true.

I think basically the difference of 15 % survival rate to 88 % survival rates represents those cancers that would never have progressed.

Scientists have been concerned about this for over a decade but the cancer societies world over continue to insist that woman undergo frequent breast cancer screening by mammogram.

Here is the kicker - guess who owns the breast cancer screening clinics - (you got it in!) The cancer societies!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Hhmmmm....I'll take my "mutilated" breasts over death, any day.

I'm really not sure I'm buying this research. I don't think earlier screening has improved womens survival chances, I believe that earlier detection by women has improved their chances of survival. It wasn't common in the 1970's for women to do breast self-exams, now it is very common.

Also, I personally had an invasive breast cancer, where would I be if funding had been cut and I didn't have access to proper screening when I found my lump?

I'm not saying that I don't think cancer is a money machine, I totally believe that. I believe there is probably a legitimate cure for cancer and it is suppressed. However, when you get that dreaded diagnosis all you want is to have that $h*t taken out of your body. I can't imagine that a woman would get that diagnosis and be like "all right, I think I'll just wait and see what happens".

Women do have a say in the treatment that they get, they don't have to have anything done (I can't imagine that). They don't have to have chemo or radiation if they don't want it. I do not take tamoxifen (sp?). That is the drug that shuts off your estrogen production. My oncologist wanted me to take it, but I refused. He was upset, but I feel that it is in my best interest to avoid a drug that can cause other cancers.

I guess some people think they are too agressive, I personally thank God that I am alive and that I was given "choices" in regards to my care.

And I would never recommend or support anything that would take away a woman's choices. But how can you make choices if you don't know about the issue?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You are saying that the issue is that "we" are spending too much on screening. And I am asking you, where would I be if that screening was not made available to me?

I survived breast cancer too and the screening was neccesary.

reply to post by Night Star


What I would like to know from both of you is how you determined that the cancer was an aggressive one?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Mine was determined by ultrasound guided needle biopsy.

reply to post by newsoul


Please newsoul - understand that I am NOT worried about the cost of breast screening but I am very concerned about the rate of treatment for cancers that would have resolved spontaneously and the 6-10 woman who received unnecessary treatment

If I may?
what stage were you at?
How old were you?
Did you have any indications or symptoms that you might have a problem with your breast
Were you in the habit of breast screening regularly
What treatment did you receive

I am actually trying to have a respectful debate. If you feel my questions are too intrusive, please feel free to tell me so.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by newsoul

 

Please newsoul - understand that I am NOT worried about the cost of breast screening but I am very concerned about the rate of treatment for cancers that would have resolved spontaneously and the 6-10 woman who received unnecessary treatment

If I may?
what stage were you at?
How old were you?
Did you have any indications or symptoms that you might have a problem with your breast
Were you in the habit of breast screening regularly
What treatment did you receive

I am actually trying to have a respectful debate. If you feel my questions are too intrusive, please feel free to tell me so.

Tired of Control Freaks

I had a needle biopsy as well.

For me, I don't remember what stage it was, but I had a small hard lump and also a mass that didn't feel right.
I am 53almost 54
I had no symptoms.
I used to have regular mammograms then I went a few years without having any as I had lost my health coverage at the time.
For me, I went through 18 chemo treatments once a week that shrunk the lump and mass down to nothing, then an operation. I am now going through radiation and only one kind of chemo that doesn't make me sick or lose my hair, and only once every 3 weeks. These are precautionery treatments.

The radiation from xrays is accumulative and can CAUSE cancer.
Contrary to the research cited I have read that there has been no difference in survival rates since screening began.
I remain skeptical. Have never had one of these. I take No vaccines. Have only missed 5 days of work on account illness in 40 years.

As to any of this "screening".
Seek and ye shall find.

If you spend a lot of time thinking/worrying about it you will get it.
Remember:
Energy Flows to where the Attnention goes.
Negative energy attracts negative results.

So if I am hearing both of you (nightstar and newsoul), neither of you were diagnosed through breast screening. Both of you had needle biopies.

Tired of Control Freask

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I had stage one invasive ductal carcinoma. I found the lump myself, during my monthly self exam. I was 39. I was diagnosed last year, June 13th to be exact.

I had a complete bilateral (both breasts) mastectomy. I had reconstruction. I refused the Tamoxifen therapy. I did not have chemo, nor was it suggested.

My story
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cancer is a horrible, horrible thing for anyone to go through. It takes something from you, that you have to fight to get back. I can't explain it, it is more than physical. So it is hard for me to think that anyone would want to limit the care or diagnostic resources that a cancer suffer has, just to stop feeding the money monster. I know first hand how very, very expensive cancer treatment is. I can't put a price on my life, or anyone else's.

I know I probably come off that I am upset with you. I'm not. It just hits really, really close to home and I feel that I am in the perfect position to tell the other side of the story. Many, many women do not do breast self exams (usually older women) and the only way that their cancer is even caught is through mammograms. I am an ultrasound tech (how ironic, right?), ultrasound is an excellent (and less painful) way to screen for breast cancer. The problem is, it doesn't catch every kind. Usually we need for the patient to feel something, or we need for something to show up on the mammo. My sister had breast cancer also, the same type as me, and hers didn't show up on ultrasound. Sometimes it's a game of cat and mouse.

EVERY woman is worth EVERY expense.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I am a little confused. I don't know anyone that was diagnosed through screening only. If a woman has a mammogram and it comes back with a suspicious area, she will then "normally" have an ultrasound, then she will "normally have a biopsy to see what the suspisious area is. Now that I am part of the club, so to speak, I know a LOT of woman who have had breast cancer, they ALL have had biopsies to confirm or deny the presence of cancer. During a routine screening the radiologist is simply looking for changes in breast tissue, a mammogram can not diagnose cancer.

reply to post by OhZone


So according to your theory, woman who get breast cancer, caused it themselves by thinking negative thoughts?? That's a first. I didn't sit around thinking negative things about my breasts, I rather liked them

Originally posted by OhZone

Contrary to the research cited I have read that there has been no difference in survival rates since screening began.

Can you reference your statement please.

reply to post by newsoul


No newsoul - you do misunderstand me totally.

I am concerned about the unnecessary mutilation of woman.

We all know that everyone gets cancer throughout their lifetimes and in multiple organs. Normally, our immune system kicks in and kills off the abnormal cells. The kind of cancer that causes symptoms and kills people is caused when our immune system fails to kill the abnormal cells.

I am concerned because if the same "screening" procedure were to be used for all types of cancer - we would all be subject to unnecessary mutilation.

There is no doubt in my mind that woman have normal breast screening once every 3 years or so as recommended by the cancer society. There is no doubt in my mind that a biopsy confirms the mass as malignant.

Where I am concerned is because there doesn't seem to be a way (or a will) for doctors to recognise which cancers will resolve without medical intervention and which ones need treatment. This is resulting in the unnecessary mutilation of woman (plus as you mention - the psychological scars of having cancer).

The reason I mention money is this. The cancer societies have absolutely zero motivation to change their breast screening advice because they are the ones pulling in a large amount of money from breast screening (most of the breast screening clinics are, in fact, owned by cancer societies).

What I would like is to start a discussion. Does breast screening cause more harm than good.

In your case, you felt the mass. You knew you had a problem before you ever saw a doctor. I suspect you probably knew how this was going to go.

In most cases of cancer, the woman are asymptomatic and have no symptoms. The only reason they are referred to their doctor is because of routine breast screening. But are these the cancers that would have resolved anyway and were those woman more harmed than helped by routine breast screening.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I still don't understand. When a woman has a biopsy, the tissue is tested. The pathologist determines the type of breast cancer and if it is invasive or not. My mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer about 15 years ago, it wasn't invasive. They did a lumpectomy, she had some radiation and went on her way. She has had no further problems.

reply to post by newsoul


Newsoul

I don't call a lumpectomy and radiation "nothing". How can you possibly say that!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


And of course, there is always the woman who choose to get double mastectomies simply out of fear that the cancer will return!

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by newsoul

 

Newsoul

I don't call a lumpectomy and radiation "nothing". How can you possibly say that!

Tired of Control Freaks

"They did a lumpectomy, she had some radiation and went on her way. She has had no further problems. "




It doesnt appear that she said that a lumpectomy and radiation is "nothing".