Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?

[Rouser2]

It certainly would seem so since all x-rays pose a cancer risk. The lastest evidence reported in the current issue of The Lancet by Amy Berrington de González and Sarah Darby found that in Britain the risk of anyone up to the age of 75 getting cancer from diagnostic X-rays was about 0.6%. This amounted to about 700 of the 124,000 cases of cancer diagnosed each year in the UK. But this was a much lower percentage than in some other countries. In Japan the figure was put at more than 3%. Diagnostic X-rays include mammograms. It would seem that women even as young as age 50 risk contracting breast cancer from the very diagnostic tool which claims to detect it, but with error rates so high and accurate detection rates so low as to make the risk/benefit ratio of such x-rays highly dubious.

http://www.thelancet.com/


-- Rouser

[Prester John]

Yes all x-rays cause Cancer, thus any procedure involving an x-ray increases the risk for Cancer. I believe that studies show that mammograms do reduce mortality due to breast cancer, thus the risk of the mammograms is outweighed by the benefit of earlier diagnosis and with modern cancer treatments this leads to increased survival.

The study points out that different practices in different countires account for the differing rates. (too many uses of the diff word in that sentence!)
Additionally there is a good chance that this study overestimates mortality caused by medical x-ray usage because the data used is based on the Japanese post Hiroshima/Nagasaki studies which may not extrapolate well, however it is the only real source of data we have about Cancer risk from radiation (ethics and all that ya know). (Notably the post H bomb study patients were exposed to various types of radiation, not just x-rays)

What the study says is that x-rays have many important medical usages, however there is a risk associated with them, so medics should think before they order an x-ray.

An additional thought of mine, is how will this sit with defensive medical practices ie ordering every test so you don't miss something an get sued. This tends to happen more in the US i believe. Damned either way :)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>I believe that studies show that mammograms do reduce mortality due to breast cancer,

I don't think so. The question is, do mammograms cause more cancer deaths than they prevent?


-- Rouser

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The question is, do mammograms cause more cancer deaths than they prevent?At a wild guess, no.

Rolfe.

[bug_girl]

well, a mammogram just saved my sister's life, so i'm a little biased.
everything i've seen finds that the tiny risk is well balanced by lives saved.

a more important question to me is why when a less painful technology exists than the mammogram, it isn't used. even though my sister is currently in chemotherapy, i really, really, really don't want to go for the twice/yr mammograms. not because i worry about the exposure, but because they freaking put your boob in a clamp! it is excrutiating for large breasted women like me.

i will go for my regular mammogram when they start doing scrotal exams with a vise grip.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I don't think so. The question is, do mammograms cause more cancer deaths than they prevent?
No.

And please dont ask questions like that again.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>I believe that studies show that mammograms do reduce mortality due to breast cancer,

I don't think so. The question is, do mammograms cause more cancer deaths than they prevent?


-- Rouser

What Yahweh said.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

What gave my mother breast cancer wasn't mammograms, but the hormone replacement therapy she was on (my family's history has no breast cancer at all, and cancers in general are almost unheard of among us. Heart disease OTOH is our achilles heel).

Hormone relacement therapy is what needs to go. There must be some evolutionary advantage to menopause, so why interfere with it?

[wipeout]

I was curious about dosages from flying in comparison to medical scans, and Google brought up this from the BBC:

Radiation doses (milli Seiverts)

UK yearly dose 2.6
Chest x-ray .02
Fortnight in Cornwall 0.2
Bag of Brazil nuts a week 0.2
Jar of Mussels a week 0.25
Frequent flyer 0.4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/557340.stm

The frequent flyer dosage is for 100 hours flying.

So a chest x-ray is equivalent to 5 hours flying. Or a few Brazil nuts. :p

Not sure I believe all that, but some interesting sources of natural radiation if true nonetheless.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The question is, do mammograms cause more cancer deaths than they prevent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>At a wild guess, no.

Rolfe.


Oh, but a recent Danish study of previous studies on the alleged effectiveness of mammography, concludes that mammography is worthless in preventing breast cancer deaths.

"There is no reliable evidence that regular mammograms reduce the risk of dying of breast cancer in women of any age, according to Danish researchers who performed an analysis of all of the major studies that have addressed the issue. "

"The two most scientifically sound studies, which the authors called medium quality, found no reduction in breast cancer deaths among women who had regular mammograms. In contrast, the three studies considered poor quality reported, on average, a 32 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality. None of the five found that having mammograms reduced overall mortality."

From: Analysis: Mammograms Don't Cut Cancer Death Risk
Danish Researchers Find No Reliable Evidence in Major Studies to Support Medical Consensus
By Susan Okie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 19, 2001; Page A02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18705-2001Oct18


Thus, when you posit the fact that mammogram x-rays do indeed cause some cancers together with the proposition that mammogram screenings do not reduce overall mortality, then one must conclude that mammograms do indeed cause more cancer deaths than they prevent. Just another instance where Modern Medicine's "cure" is worse than the disease. Quack, quack!!

-- Rouser

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Yahweh

No. And please dont ask questions like that again.

Yahweh, i want to adopt you.:D

[tamiO]

Originally posted by bug_girl
well, a mammogram just saved my sister's life, so i'm a little biased.
everything i've seen finds that the tiny risk is well balanced by lives saved.

a more important question to me is why when a less painful technology exists than the mammogram, it isn't used. even though my sister is currently in chemotherapy, i really, really, really don't want to go for the twice/yr mammograms. not because i worry about the exposure, but because they freaking put your boob in a clamp! it is excrutiating for large breasted women like me.

i will go for my regular mammogram when they start doing scrotal exams with a vise grip.

I have fibroids and cysts in my breasts and elsewhere. When I discovered my first lump, I was off to have a mammogram. When they saw the lumps (that could be felt) on the mammogram, they sent me to ultrasound for a good look at them.

Why don't they just take you to ultrasound first?

It seems counterintuitive to smash a breast full of cysts in a mammogram machine.

[bug_girl]

what i was told was that the mammograms are cheaper, since it uses existing machinery. the xrays are better at finding microcalcifications, which are a sign of cancer.
however, i suspect that as time passes, the ultrasound will get better techniques.

i am always convinced that my boob will explode. yes guys, it's that bad.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by bug_girl
i am always convinced that my boob will explode.Ouch.

Ouch, ouch, ouch.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
What gave my mother breast cancer wasn't mammograms, but the hormone replacement therapy she was on (my family's history has no breast cancer at all, and cancers in general are almost unheard of among us.The statistic I heard was that if a woman doesn't take HRT between the ages of 50 and 60, she has a 95.5% chance of not getting breast cancer. If she takes HRT for that period, this chance drops to 95%.

I have a friend whose wife was picked up with a small breast lesion (now thankfully dealt with), who is also convinced that the HRT caused it. But in fact, although it exerted an effect, it's a relatively small effect. For any one given case, the chances are that the HRT didn't cause it, but you can't be sure. Most breast cancer is not familial.

The more interesting question is whether my friend's wife would ever have experienced any actual trouble from the small ductal carcinoma insitu which was picked up at routine mammography, or whether it would never have progressed and all her stress and surgery were unnecesssary.

She thinks, better safe than sorry.

One other statistic I heard (though I don't off-hand know the source), is that the death rate from breast cancer for women taking HRT is lower, belived to be due to the fact that the known risk factor, though small, provided these women with more incentive to do the screening and the self-examination and so on, thus detected their tumours earlier, whether or not the HRT caused them.

Rolfe.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Oh, but a recent Danish study of previous studies on the alleged effectiveness of mammography, concludes that mammography is worthless in preventing breast cancer deaths.

"There is no reliable evidence that regular mammograms reduce the risk of dying of breast cancer in women of any age, according to Danish researchers who performed an analysis of all of the major studies that have addressed the issue. "

"The two most scientifically sound studies, which the authors called medium quality, found no reduction in breast cancer deaths among women who had regular mammograms. In contrast, the three studies considered poor quality reported, on average, a 32 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality. None of the five found that having mammograms reduced overall mortality."

From: Analysis: Mammograms Don't Cut Cancer Death Risk
Danish Researchers Find No Reliable Evidence in Major Studies to Support Medical Consensus
By Susan Okie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 19, 2001; Page A02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18705-2001Oct18


Thus, when you posit the fact that mammogram x-rays do indeed cause some cancers together with the proposition that mammogram screenings do not reduce overall mortality, then one must conclude that mammograms do indeed cause more cancer deaths than they prevent. Just another instance where Modern Medicine's "cure" is worse than the disease. Quack, quack!!

-- Rouser
WOW!! I AM TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY!!

Now call me crazy, but I had always assumed detecting early stages of cancer, then treating the cancer if it was found would be beneficial. Silly me for being ignorant!

I mean, when Grandma Yahweh had her mammogram 2 years ago, and then later treated for breast cancer, well who would I be to judge that this mammogram did actually help her. I mean, she could have just waited for the cancer to develope to terminal stage, but nooooo she just had to get a check before it would ever have a chance to reach that stage in development.

And there there is Momma Yahweh, now she's had a history of medical problems. Oops, a few "abnormalities" (of the cancerous variety) were found, they were treated, and Momma Yahweh hasnt had a problem.

And Aunt Yahweh, who can forget about her. A few cysts removed, they did not pose an immediate problem, but when my family has a pretty impressive history of breast and lung cancer, you never want to take too many risks.

Silly me, thinking all these medical examinations designed for early detection of cancer were of any benefit.


I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others.

Mammograms (at about 50% sensitivity) are less efficient than sonography (90% sensitivity) (source: Pub-med (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12049952&dopt=Abstract)), but that is not to say they are medically worthless. They save lives, and why you object to that is beyond me.

So you managed to find some studies which extremely false data that happen to agree with you, well color me unimpressed. ‹^›

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Thus, when you posit the fact that mammogram x-rays do indeed cause some cancers together with the proposition that mammogram screenings do not reduce overall mortality, then one must conclude that mammograms do indeed cause more cancer deaths than they prevent. Just another instance where Modern Medicine's "cure" is worse than the disease. Quack, quack!!

-- Rouser [/B]

You're in the same situation as your inane anti-vaccination claims. First, you have to quanitfy the number of cancers attributed to mammograms. You have no such data, just a guesstimate based partially on nuclear bomb survival data. Equally suspect is your claim that mammograms have no benefit. No credible evidence for either claim, as usual...

[Zep]

Actually, Rouser, you have not even made a point at all. Your Danish report was on the efficacy of mammograms to detect cancer based on a meta-study of five (that's FIVE) previous studies of mammography efficacy.

Well, gee. I would be willing to suggest that mammography was introduced in each country it operates in only after it was rigourously scrutinised by many, MANY independent scientific studies that DID show that it was in some way effective at what it claims.

After all, most of these mamograph screening programs are paid for by governments out of taxes, and the health budgets are notoriously placed at the bottom of the out-basket. Which means there has to be a really, REALLY good scientific case to be made to get the pollies to cough up even the tidbit of cash they have so far to make the screening possible. And if it EVER proved to be ineffective, I'm sure the money supply would dry up (have dried up) instantly. But it hasn't. Hmmmm...

But I'm sure we all agree that clamping a woman's breast in a vice to take an X-ray image is painful, and that X-rays have a known but extremely low effect on initiating cancer (see above). But it has been proven since the 1940's that it is far more effective for the person and their family and the community that mammographs actually get done - Yahweh has given you direct evidence, and many of the rest of us can do the same.

It is also clear that soon there may well be much better, more comfortable and even safer ways to detect in-body cancer and other illnesses. And when THEY become proven as more efficacious, the days of boob-crushing X-ray mammography will indeed end.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It certainly would seem so since all x-rays pose a cancer risk. The lastest evidence reported in the current issue of The Lancet by Amy Berrington de González and Sarah Darby found that in Britain the risk of anyone up to the age of 75 getting cancer from diagnostic X-rays was about 0.6%. This amounted to about 700 of the 124,000 cases of cancer diagnosed each year in the UK. But this was a much lower percentage than in some other countries. In Japan the figure was put at more than 3%. Diagnostic X-rays include mammograms. It would seem that women even as young as age 50 risk contracting breast cancer from the very diagnostic tool which claims to detect it, but with error rates so high and accurate detection rates so low as to make the risk/benefit ratio of such x-rays highly dubious.

http://www.thelancet.com/


-- Rouser

Well, of course I didn't follow your link. But even without any evidence, I can answer the question. How you ask? Based on things you have posted in the past, it's simple:

1) You believe there were multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza.
2) You believe the moon landing was a hoax.
3) You believe vaccinations are part of some evil government plot.
4) You believe the current Mars landings are a hoax.
5) Now you seem to imply that mammograms cause cancer.

Now, based upon #1-#5, we can conclude that you are an idiot. Therefore, if you say that mammograms cause cancer, it is obvious that they do not.

See how that works?

Moron.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It certainly would seem so since all x-rays pose a cancer risk. The lastest evidence reported in the current issue of The Lancet by Amy Berrington de González and Sarah Darby found that in Britain the risk of anyone up to the age of 75 getting cancer from diagnostic X-rays was about 0.6%. This amounted to about 700 of the 124,000 cases of cancer diagnosed each year in the UK. But this was a much lower percentage than in some other countries. In Japan the figure was put at more than 3%. Diagnostic X-rays include mammograms. It would seem that women even as young as age 50 risk contracting breast cancer from the very diagnostic tool which claims to detect it, but with error rates so high and accurate detection rates so low as to make the risk/benefit ratio of such x-rays highly dubious.

http://www.thelancet.com/


-- Rouser

From that same article:

Berrington de González and Darby did not assess the indications or benefits achieved for patients in X-ray examinations

So checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study

Benefits include the earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the possibility of early treatment, which probably allows more cure of cancers than radiological exposure is able to cause.

But of course this is just an assertion because checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study

Interpretation We provide detailed estimates of the cancer risk from diagnostic X-rays. The calculations involved a number of assumptions and so are inevitably subject to considerable uncertainty. The possibility that we have overestimated the risks cannot be ruled out, but that we have underestimated them substantially seems unlikely.

Oh, and by the way, they consider the 700 figure to be high

From their figures, 29 out of a total of 21,164 breast cancer cases MAY have been caused by screening

Although there are clear benefits from the use of diagnostic X-rays, that their use involves some risk of cancer is generally acknowledged.


I think that it's valuable to question whether a particualr treatment is effective. Thsi study was dorected at evaluating the risks.

Looks like the process of chacking the effecacy of treatments is working as usual...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Yahweh [/i]


>>I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others


And many of the cancerous tumors they "find" do not exist.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zep [/i]


>>After all, most of these mamograph screening programs are paid for by governments out of taxes, and the health budgets are notoriously placed at the bottom of the out-basket. Which means there has to be a really, REALLY good scientific case to be made to get the pollies to cough up even the tidbit of cash they have so far to make the screening possible. And if it EVER proved to be ineffective, I'm sure the money supply would dry up (have dried up) instantly.

Comment: Naivete squared.



-- Rouser

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Yahweh [/i]


>>I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others


And many of the cancerous tumors they "find" do not exist.


-- Rouser

Which are biopsied and found not to be malignant

The alternative being (in rouserworld) wait until the tumor is the size of a golf ball and then hope for a spontaneous remission.

Medicine is NOT perfect, is it however demonstrably better than the alternative in almost all cases.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by bug_girl
Yahweh, i want to adopt you.:D
[hugs my momma bug_girl]

:)

*sniff sniff* I feel so loved!

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Zep [/i]

>>After all, most of these mamograph screening programs are paid for by governments out of taxes, and the health budgets are notoriously placed at the bottom of the out-basket. Which means there has to be a really, REALLY good scientific case to be made to get the pollies to cough up even the tidbit of cash they have so far to make the screening possible. And if it EVER proved to be ineffective, I'm sure the money supply would dry up (have dried up) instantly.

Comment: Naivete squared.
-- RouserResponse: Wilful ignorance to the n^th power.

No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy. There is no monetary benefit involved - it is a "sink" of funds. So is education and public transport and similar. Why do you think so much of it is being forced into "private" hands these days??

Therefore the cheapest and most effective technologies will win ongoing funding approval. Technologies such as immunisation, and X-ray cancer screening, and so on, with proven track-records of effectiveness. And as I said, if a better, cheaper technology comes along then the old will be dropped ASAP. Examples abound, if you only care to look (!).

[Rouser2]

posted by Zep [/i]

>>No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy.


The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]


>>So checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits include the earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the possibility of early treatment, which probably allows more cure of cancers than radiological exposure is able to cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>But of course this is just an assertion because checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study


But I provided that balance in reference to the Danish study of 2000 which studied several of the major, but flawed previous studies. No mortality benefit from mammograms at all.


-- Rouser

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.

-- Rouser
Humility, dear Rouser, salvage your humility by not making such ignorant utterences.

Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.


No, big gummermant is not out to get us. All governments have one goal in mind: To be a tool of social good. In refusing to do this, citizens may overthrow the government, which they ought to do if their government is tyrannical, and a nation with no government is usually unstable, a nation with no government will likely descend to the status of "third-world". That hurt everyone.

Governments are not greedy, they are your friend. If they were truely greedy, they could easily garnish the totality of your income above minimum wage.

Your conspiracy theories do plenty in the way of failing to impress me.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Yahweh [/i]

>>I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others.

Duh????

>>Mammograms (at about 50% sensitivity) are less efficient than sonography (90% sensitivity) (source: Pub-med), but that is not to say they are medically worthless. They save lives, and why you object to that is beyond me.


Mammograms may save some lives, but they also kill. The question is, do they save more than they kill?

>>So you managed to find some studies which extremely false data that happen to agree with you, well color me unimpressed.

"Extremely false data??? How so?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>You're in the same situation as your inane anti-vaccination claims. First, you have to quanitfy the number of cancers attributed to mammograms. You have no such data, just a guesstimate based partially on nuclear bomb survival data.

A "guesstimate"??? So BTox has acquired a new word?? Ah, but not a "guestimate" at all but an extrapolation. A "guesstimate" is more like when Dr. Strangeloves like you pull numbers from out of the air as to how many deaths would occur had not this or that vaccine been administered. That's "guesstimate".


-- Rouser

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Yahweh [/i]

>>I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others.

Duh????
Good, you acknowledge mammograms find many many more tumors than they miss, which is much much better than finding none by refusing to get a mammogram, so we are in agreement.

Mammograms may save some lives, but they also kill. The question is, do they save more than they kill?
The amount of radiation, as wipeout pointed out, is about as dangerous a few Brazil nuts.

They do not and cannot kill, they only offer mild pain but the benefits (knowing you're in proper health, or finding cancer before it has a chance to cause damage) are worth quite a bit more I would say.

"Extremely false data??? How so?
The little tidbit regarding "mammograms do indeed cause more cancer deaths than they prevent" is where I'd put my money on "extremely false", and perhaps a little change on "No mortality benefit from mammograms at all".

You know, a walk through a store with a wall of televisions poses a bigger cancer "risk" than a mammogram, perhaps we should be going after Big Media :nope:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Yahweh

No, big gummermant is not out to get us.


Oh yes they are!!! Rouser2 has seen the black helicopters!!! Yes sir, he has! They flew right over the top of his double wide!

And remember, he can also tell you how they faked the moon landing!

[Quasi]

Yet another toxic post. First, the number one killer of women, by a long way is heart disease. It is already known that a womans chance of dying from BC before age 65 in the US is only 5% for all causes of death. In other words, more women die in car accidents over that age group than BC. In the landmark CDC cancer study performed over 30 years, if you correct for cigarette smoking, sun bathing, and HIV infection, not only are cancer deaths declining across the board, but incidence of cancer is also declining (yep, even including those who get regular mammograms.) Further, even including smoking and HIV etc. our life expectancy is still going up. So should women be obsessed with BC? Not really, they should eat healthier, exercise more, get regular medical check ups and fight for safer driving conditions. Of course, much of health today is a lifestyle issue (snmoking, tanning, safe sex, diet, exercise etc,) and alternative gurus like to place the blame on "evil conventional medicine" or "energy imbalances" etc. Anything to shift the blame away from personal responsibility, which is what most people want to hear.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rouser2
posted by Zep [/i]

>>No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy.


The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.

-- Rouser You really DON'T have a clue, do you!

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by The Don [/i]


>>So checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits include the earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the possibility of early treatment, which probably allows more cure of cancers than radiological exposure is able to cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>But of course this is just an assertion because checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study


But I provided that balance in reference to the Danish study of 2000 which studied several of the major, but flawed previous studies. No mortality benefit from mammograms at all.


-- Rouser

There is a more recent study which, I note, you have not referenced.

Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/newtechnologyfeature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that Women who get regular mammograms could reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 28 percent

Apparently the older you are, the greater the benefit.

Score one more for the medical community:

- A study throws up new and controvertial evidence (past studies poorly performed - no evidence for effectiveness)
- The medical community repsonds by taking criticisms on board
- A better study is performed
- The results are reviewed
- They don't let the matter lie

As opposed to the "alternative community"

- An assertion is made
- The assertion is maintained despite evidence to the contrary
- All opposing evidence is ignored on the grounds that it has been planted as part of some conspiracy

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Quasi [/i]


>>and alternative gurus like to place the blame on "evil conventional medicine" or "energy imbalances" etc. Anything to shift the blame away from personal responsibility, which is what most people want to hear.

On the contrary, it is the Cancer Research Establishment which minimizes prevention in favor of ever seeking the magic bullet "cure". And the notion that conventional medicine such as x-rays and other radiation treatments as well as chemotherapy in fact causes cancer is indisputable.


-- Rouser

[Frankie]

NHS program screens women from their 50's in the UK every 3 years until the age of 60years.

3 years ago my Mother was free. Then she had her mammogram and the cancer showed up. I wouldn't say they cause any more.

I agree with bug-girl, it is uncomfortable for the larger breasted women. I not look forward to having mine though mine mammogram-ed. Men should have the same then they would be more sympathetic.


HRT trials have just been stopped in Switzerland(?) as it showed a unreasonable high rise in breast cancer rates to those who had the disease previous. The one thing that looks like started my Mothers grade3 breast cancer.

Bad thing to stop trials on one hand, as HRT helps those women who suffer badly with hot flushes and bad menopauses. What is left for them? the other hand at least those testing are prepared to put lives of other a priority first.

Oestrogen might be a more high probability in cancer causes than mammograms.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don [/i]


>>Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/ne...ature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women who get regular mammograms could reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 28 percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


28 percent of what? No indication here as to whether the stated percentage is "relative" or "absolute,", is there???


-- Rouser

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rouser2
*snip*

On the contrary, it is the Cancer Research Establishment

The what? Cancer research is done at hundreds of independent institutes distributed in numerous countries

which minimizes prevention in favor of ever seeking the magic bullet "cure".

Yeh, that explains why we have a new "this causes cancer" scare every week :rolleyes: .

And the notion that conventional medicine such as x-rays and other radiation treatments as well as chemotherapy in fact causes cancer is indisputable.

Rouser: BREATHING causes cancer. This is indisputable. I suggest you lay it off.


-- Rouser

Hans

[The Don]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by The Don [/i]


>>Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/ne...ature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women who get regular mammograms could reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 28 percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


28 percent of what? No indication here as to whether the stated percentage is "relative" or "absolute,", is there???


-- Rouser

Huh ?

Pick a worst case and demonstrate to me how this saves fewer lives than are lost by exposure to xrays from mammograms.

Remember, number of cases potentially caused by xray exposure was 29

29 out of a total of 21,164 breast cancer cases MAY have been caused by screening

Unless there were a total of only 100 fatal cases of breast cancer then a 28% reduction has this beaten.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>Cancer research is done at hundreds of independent institutes distributed in numerous countries


Oh really? Can you name just one that does not receive government money?


-- Rouser


P.S. Flash: Breathing does not cause cancer.

[Suezoled]

What does government funding have to do with the efficacy of mammograms? No matter what you believe, the government is not out to give the population cancer. If they were, don't you think... no, wait... nevermind.

[I mean, they'd use a more aggressive, hard-to tread cancer, right?]

[Mark]

Good news: they are getting better and better at detecting tumors and the earlier they are detected, the more effective the treatments. If you ever receive that horrible news (I did) you can fight back!

Bad news: there are ignorant cretins in the world who are trying to discourage this.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rouser2



>>Cancer research is done at hundreds of independent institutes distributed in numerous countries


Oh really? Can you name just one that does not receive government money?

No. And?


-- Rouser


P.S. Flash: Breathing does not cause cancer.

I have to tell you it does. You are inhaling soot particles, nitrogen oxides, radioactive inert gasses, and several other goodies. Breathing DOES cause cancer :eek:



And to prove it even more, nobody has ever developed cancer after they ceased to breathe ;).

News flash: Eating also causes cancer :eek: !


Hans

[Suezoled]

dimmit Hands! Next thing you're gonna tell me that snorting Sweet Tarts causes cancer! Don't take all my fun away!

[Rolfe]

We all have a fatal disease. It's called "life". :D

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>No matter what you believe, the government is not out to give the population cancer. If they were, don't you think... no, wait... nevermind.

Comment: Naivete cubed.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mark
Good news: they are getting better and better at detecting tumors and the earlier they are detected, the more effective the treatments. If you ever receive that horrible news (I did) you can fight back!

Bad news: there are ignorant cretins in the world who are trying to discourage this.


Like the Danish researcher-cretins who found that the notion that mammograms save lives is unproven and based on faulty research.

-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>No matter what you believe, the government is not out to give the population cancer. If they were, don't you think... no, wait... nevermind.

Comment: Naivete cubed.


-- Rouser

Comment: I rest my case

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>P.S. Flash: Breathing does not cause cancer.

I have to tell you it does. You are inhaling soot particles, nitrogen oxides, radioactive inert gasses, and several other goodies. Breathing DOES cause cancer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Breathing" is not a cancer causing substance, but an act of life. It's the bad substances in the air that may cause cancer.

-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

"Rouser" will not cause massive headaches. It's the material he presents on such an insane level that causes electro-chemical reactions that induce pain.

[Rolfe]

This is a news report, but I'm sure someone can source the figures quoted.

"More people are surviving cancer." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3455399.stm)

Looks good to me.

Rolfe.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Like the Danish researcher-cretins who found that the notion that mammograms save lives is unproven and based on faulty research.

-- Rouser

You are starting from a faulty and biased premise: that any program which receives government money is tainted and therefore useless. This is Libertarian dogma and, to anyone who is even slightly familiar with the state of cancer research, utterly absurd.

I can't speak directly to this Danish study...although from what I have seen, on the surface, you are drawing conclusions that the researchers did not intend. However, I will say that all cancer treatments/therapies/etc., carry some slight risk of actually causing the disease. So does just being alive. But...those risks are FAR outweighed by the benefits of early detection and treatment.

My own case is a good example...the disease was caught so early that I never even had to have chemo or radiation at all. If I had followed your line of thinking, I would never have had the tests in the first place and would quite likely be dead in the next 2-3 years.

You are speaking from extreme ignorance and the thought that your uninformed rantings might actually influence someone against being tested is making me very angry indeed.

If you want to be a troll, that is your business; but with this topic you are playing a dangerous game with people's lives and you should be ashamed of yourself. Not that you will, of course. Libertarian idiot.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mark [/i]


>>I can't speak directly to this Danish study...although from what I have seen, on the surface, you are drawing conclusions that the researchers did not intend.

So you're not familiar with the study, yet you feel qualified not only to comment on it, but to denigrate it. And just what government school did you attend?


>> However, I will say that all cancer treatments/therapies/etc., carry some slight risk of actually causing the disease.


The key word is "slight." What does "slight" mean? Is there a percentage range for "slight"?? Is 5, 10, 25 percent "slight"???? Or are you just parroting Modern Medicine's rationalizations ???

>> So does just being alive. But...those risks are FAR outweighed by the benefits of early detection and treatment.

A familiar cliche. That's what Modern Medicine says regarding any number of dangerous diagnostic procedures. But is it true? As to mammograms, the Danish study says there is no evidence of such benefits. But you, who are not familiar with the study, say that's just wrong.

>>My own case is a good example...the disease was caught so early that I never even had to have chemo or radiation at all. If I had followed your line of thinking, I would never have had the tests in the first place and would quite likely be dead in the next 2-3 years.

Anecdotal evidence can be countered with contrary anecdotal evidence. And how do you really if know you even had the big "C"???

>>You are speaking from extreme ignorance and the thought that your uninformed rantings might actually influence someone against being tested is making me very angry indeed.

I only wish my "uninformed rantings" had even made a dent on my own brother's situation, but to no avail. I don't tell anyone what to do. That's what Modern Medicine does. I only suggest that people be fully informed. Consider all sides, opinions, evidence or lack thereof. And, of course, consider the source -- and the motivation. In other words, it might be a good idea to think twice.


-- Rouser

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Consider all sides, opinions, evidence or lack thereof. And, of course, consider the source -- and the motivation.Now there's a piece of good advice from an unlikely source.

Just think about the motivation of the people charging large amounts of money to desperate people for unproven and quack remedies. And as far as evidence (or lack thereof) goes, there are some excellent resources. This is a good one. (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/index.html)

Rouser, we're all desperately sorry that it didn't work out for your brother. But wake up and smell the coffee. Millions of dedicated professional scientists and doctors, lumped together as "modern medicine", have been responsible for a huge proportion of the improvement in our general quality of life over the past hundred years or so. Many of these people work for a pittance trying to bring decent health care to the third world. Even the ones making a nice living in the developed world, by and large, care about their patients. If they didn't, they would have gone into something with more regular hours.

I know medical researchers. If they could invent themselves out of a job tomorrow, they'd die happy. Of course that's unlikely. There's far too much still to tackle for anyone who conquers a serious disease to fear any more than a Nobel Prize and a change of speciality. But from the days when the 19th century doctors fought to get midwives and other birth attendants to take proper hygienic precautions to avoid puerperal fever, even though they themselves would make money if called to a case of puerperal fever, stamping out disease has been a genuine desire.

I can't quite understand where you got these twisted ideas from. But open your eyes and look around you, if you can.

Rolfe.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Mark [/i]


>>I can't speak directly to this Danish study...although from what I have seen, on the surface, you are drawing conclusions that the researchers did not intend.

So you're not familiar with the study, yet you feel qualified not only to comment on it, but to denigrate it. And just what government school did you attend?


>> However, I will say that all cancer treatments/therapies/etc., carry some slight risk of actually causing the disease.


The key word is "slight." What does "slight" mean? Is there a percentage range for "slight"?? Is 5, 10, 25 percent "slight"???? Or are you just parroting Modern Medicine's rationalizations ???

>> So does just being alive. But...those risks are FAR outweighed by the benefits of early detection and treatment.

A familiar cliche. That's what Modern Medicine says regarding any number of dangerous diagnostic procedures. But is it true? As to mammograms, the Danish study says there is no evidence of such benefits. But you, who are not familiar with the study, say that's just wrong.

>>My own case is a good example...the disease was caught so early that I never even had to have chemo or radiation at all. If I had followed your line of thinking, I would never have had the tests in the first place and would quite likely be dead in the next 2-3 years.

Anecdotal evidence can be countered with contrary anecdotal evidence. And how do you really if know you even had the big "C"???

>>You are speaking from extreme ignorance and the thought that your uninformed rantings might actually influence someone against being tested is making me very angry indeed.

I only wish my "uninformed rantings" had even made a dent on my own brother's situation, but to no avail. I don't tell anyone what to do. That's what Modern Medicine does. I only suggest that people be fully informed. Consider all sides, opinions, evidence or lack thereof. And, of course, consider the source -- and the motivation. In other words, it might be a good idea to think twice.


-- Rouser

You're an idiot.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Mark


You're an idiot.

It took you this long to figure it out? :D

[Eos of the Eons]

Hey, I missed out here. Been busy bashing anti-vaxxers on a humanist board, you know.

Hmm, now rouser is an expert on cancer, and breast cancer at that. :dl:


Well, I'd go on about prostate cancer, but I'm sure rouser can find a cause for that in how doctors ***cough*** screen for that :D

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rolfe
We all have a fatal disease. It's called "life". :D

Rolfe. Youp! A sexually transmitted sufferance with a fatal outcome. No more no less.

Hans

[Mark]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


It took you this long to figure it out? :D

My excuse is that I have been without caffeine for 4 days now. Ugh. ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>P.S. Flash: Breathing does not cause cancer.

I have to tell you it does. You are inhaling soot particles, nitrogen oxides, radioactive inert gasses, and several other goodies. Breathing DOES cause cancer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Breathing" is not a cancer causing substance, but an act of life. It's the bad substances in the air that may cause cancer.

-- Rouser WOW! You ARE astute. SO, breathing is another case of running a risk for a benefit.

The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?

Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?

Hans

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?


I don't trust anybody.


>>Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?


I can think of any number of possible reasons: (1.) Danes are just as dumb as Americans? (2.) Habits are hard to overcome??? (3.) At least you think you're doing "something"??? (4.) Money talks??? (5.) All of the above????


-- Rouser

[Mark]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?


I don't trust anybody.


>>Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?


I can think of any number of possible reasons: (1.) Danes are just as dumb as Americans? (2.) Habits are hard to overcome??? (3.) At least you think you're doing "something"??? (4.) Money talks??? (5.) All of the above????


-- Rouser

You left out (6.): It's effective, idiot.:hit:

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>> I can't quite understand where you got these twisted ideas from.


Twisted ideas? I cite a reputable study which concludes there is no valid evidence of any lives saved with mammography along with a study that shows an associatiion between diagnostic x-rays and cancer and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I cite a span of a quarter of a century where the medical authorities in the US knew very well that their polio vaccine was causing more polio than they were preventing and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I cite the the infamous Swine Flu fiasco which caused scores of deaths and hundreds paralyzed from a vaccine administered without scientific basis nor any preventive rationale and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I would suggest to you, that "twisted" are the brains of those whose only response to real "evidence" is ad hominem attack, whether in the form of calling that poster "twisted" or "wicked" or simply an "idiot". I would suggest that such levels of discourse only betrays the mental bankruptcy of the accusor. Where do I get such ideas? I get them from distinguished professionals. medical doctors as well as MDs who license Medical doctors, high government medical officers. I get them from scientists, Nobel Prize Winners, and personal injury lawyers. And I get them from personal experience, with family, friends and self.

-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?


I don't trust anybody.


>>Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?


I can think of any number of possible reasons: (1.) Danes are just as dumb as Americans? (2.) Habits are hard to overcome??? (3.) At least you think you're doing "something"??? (4.) Money talks??? (5.) All of the above????


-- Rouser

Rouser is arguing against himself???? Way to take on an impossible challenger Rouser. Maybe you'll get further with yourself than anyone else has. Good luck convincing yourself.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I cite a span of a quarter of a century where the medical authorities in the US knew very well that their polio vaccine was causing more polio than they were preventing and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I'll just take that one from the tirade, and point out that it has been explained to you a dozen times why this is a "twisted" interpretation of the facts (you have absolutely no idea how much polio that vaccine was preventing), and why it is still preferable to put up with some vaccine-induced disease if it prevents the much more virulent wild virus from becoming re-established in the population from reservoirs abroad.

What is "twisted" is your selection of facts to suit your "twisted" anti-medicine agenda, and your "twisting" of many sources to imply things that the authors never intended them to imply. Also your continual harping on about imperfect medical practices of the past, carried out by people who were acting with the best of intentions, and mostly succeeding in doing a lot of good even if some harm also resulted. Also your persistent ignoring of the improved practices of the present day, and the incalculable benefits we all enjoy thanks to continuing medical advances.

Rouser, I'm actually desperately sorry for you. I'm sorry you lost your brother, but I'm even sorrier for anyone with such a bitter and twisted view of a group of people on whom we all depend, and a system which would take you in and fix you up if you ever needed it, irrespective of the bile you spew up on them every day.

You must be very unhappy, and I pity you.

Rolfe.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Rouser, I'm actually desperately sorry for you. I'm sorry you lost your brother, but I'm even sorrier for anyone with such a bitter and twisted view of a group of people on whom we all depend, and a system which would take you in and fix you up if you ever needed it, irrespective of the bile you spew up on them every day.

You must be very unhappy, and I pity you.

Rolfe.

I'm not. His contemptible rantings could adversely affect the health of someone who is foolish enough to listen to him. He's no better than a f****ing faith healer.

[Prester John]

British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7435/303

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>I'll just take that one from the tirade, and point out that it has been explained to you a dozen times why this is a "twisted" interpretation of the facts (you have absolutely no idea how much polio that vaccine was preventing), and why it is still preferable to put up with some vaccine-induced disease if it prevents the much more virulent wild virus from becoming re-established in the population from reservoirs abroad.

Dr. Jonas Salk must be placed in your "twisted" category as a critic of just how "preferable" it was to knowingly cause polio in unsuspecting victims via the live Polio vaccine which the CDC did for a quarter of a century after his initial warning.

As to the rest of your own bile-driven tirade, responding to factless ad hominem attack is pointless. I try not to get into mud fights with people who have nothing else to offer.


-- Rouser

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I try not to get into mud fights with people who have nothing else to offer.I've tried offering you logic, and facts, and sensible balance and even sympathy. None of it seems to get through.

Hows about you have a look at Prester John's link and try to make some sort of sensible comment on that?

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


I would suggest to you, that "twisted" are the brains of those whose only response to real "evidence" is ad hominem attack, whether in the form of calling that poster "twisted" or "wicked" or simply an "idiot". I would suggest that such levels of discourse only betrays the mental bankruptcy of the accusor. Where do I get such ideas? I get them from distinguished professionals. medical doctors as well as MDs who license Medical doctors, high government medical officers. I get them from scientists, Nobel Prize Winners, and personal injury lawyers. And I get them from personal experience, with family, friends and self.

-- Rouser

What a crock. You cherry pick the one study out of a hundred that supports your ridiculous view, cling to it like a baby's blanket and then completely reject the mountains of evidence that we supply that refutes your claims. You have failed miserably to support any such claims on this board.

Did I mention that you are a nitwit?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>Hows about you have a look at Prester John's link and try to make some sort of sensible comment on that?

Prester John has not stated any point. And neither have you.

-- Rouser

[DickK]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>Hows about you have a look at Prester John's link and try to make some sort of sensible comment on that?

Prester John has not stated any point. And neither have you.

-- Rouser Oh good grief, read the words, one after the other, the sentence will follow...his link, his link, what's his point got to do with it, or Rolfe's for that matter? Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.

[Mark]

Originally posted by DickK
Oh good grief, read the words, one after the other, the sentence will follow...his link, his link, what's his point got to do with it, or Rolfe's for that matter? Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.

You have to support Rouser's BS 100% or else you are avoiding the issue and/or don't make sense. That's how hard-core Libertarians think.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
posted by Zep [/i]

>>No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy.


The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.

-- Rouser

So, now you're using your anti-vac quackery as a reference? 'Scuse me for not being convinced.

I hope that nobody believes you and dies as a result.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by DickK [/i]


>>Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

>>Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.

Apparently Prester John has no point. Rolf has no point and you have no point either. So what's the point? Cancer death rates fall?? So what? Does this mean that Modern Medicine has turned the corner on the War on Cancer?? Prester doensn't say; nor does Rolf nor you. What does a 12 percent drop over 30 years mean? Does it mean there are cancers being cured that were not before? Prester doesn't say, nor does Rolf, nor you. Perhaps the alleged decline is due to the fact that fewer people, especially fewer men are smoking, contracting fewer lung cancer cases (the quickest, surest death) while other cancers, with a much longer life span, are increasing. You see, it is very necessary to "dissemble". Otherwise no one knows what anyone else is talking about. Do you know what you are talking about???

-- Rouser

[Mark]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by DickK [/i]


>>Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

>>Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.

Apparently Prester John has no point. Rolf has no point and you have no point either. So what's the point? Cancer death rates fall?? So what? Does this mean that Modern Medicine has turned the corner on the War on Cancer?? Prester doensn't say; nor does Rolf nor you. What does a 12 percent drop over 30 years mean? Does it mean there are cancers being cured that were not before? Prester doesn't say, nor does Rolf, nor you. Perhaps the alleged decline is due to the fact that fewer people, especially fewer men are smoking, contracting fewer lung cancer cases (the quickest, surest death) while other cancers, with a much longer life span, are increasing. You see, it is very necessary to "dissemble". Otherwise no one knows what anyone else is talking about. Do you know what you are talking about???

-- Rouser

Are you really this thick? Or just trolling? No 3rd choice.

[Prester John]

You really are an idiot Rouser.

heres a quote from the article

In the same period, mortality from breast cancer in women has fallen by 20%

BMJ 2004;328:303 (7 February)

[Prester John]

and the point is i am not presenting my opinion, i am presenting facts about the current situation. the thread you started Rouser is about Cancer, so is the article. Maybe if you read some real medical science you would lose some of the ignorance you have in abundance.

[DickK]

Originally posted by Rouser2
...You see, it is very necessary to "dissemble". Otherwise no one knows what anyone else is talking about. Do you know what you are talking about???

-- Rouser That has to be the best entry in the anti-language awards. I think the root of the problem is now clear...the words you're using don't mean what you think they mean, unless you think we ought to start debating plain english now? Get a grip or get a dictionary, better still get another hobby, the Internet is not doing you any good.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>heres a quote from the article

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same period, mortality from breast cancer in women has fallen by 20%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So?? You still have no point? Are we supposed to guess? If your point is, ah ha, Modern Medicne is curing more breast cancer, then why don't you say so? But the fact is, the modest mortality rate decreases in some countries may have more to do with never contracting it in the first place due to factors such as child bearing, the age of first born, as well as a return to breast feeding and away from "formula".

"Breast cancer mortality rates are levelling off or beginning to decline in many western countries: analysis of time trends, age-cohort and age-period models of breast cancer mortality in 20 countries."

Hermon C, Beral V.

Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, UK.

"Age-standardised mortality rates for breast cancer were examined for 20 countries in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand from 1950 to 1992 and age-birth cohort and age-period of death models were fitted to the data. Breast cancer mortality rates generally increased in the earlier decades, but more recently rates have levelled off or begun to decline in most countries..."

"...The birth cohort effects were suggestive of a decline in breast cancer rates among women born after about 1920 and were evident in many countries especially Canada, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom and the United States. The decline in mortality in women born after 1920 appeared to be in part related to a reduction in childlessness and a reduction in age at first birth in those generations...."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8611414&dopt=Abstract


-- Rouser

[Suezoled]

From the same source Rouser is quoting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8611414&dopt=Abstract

Br J Cancer. 1996 Apr;73(7):955-60.

The decline in mortality in women born after 1920 appeared to be in part related to a reduction in childlessness and a reduction in age at first birth in those generations. As well as the birth cohort effects, there was some evidence of a recent overall decline in mortality rates in several countries, e.g. Austria, FRG, Greece and the UK, and this may be due to an increase in survival resulting from improved management and treatment of women with breast cancer.

And if you will note, in no way does the link in any way correlate mammograms with an increase in cancer rates, or causing cancer at all.

I hate to say it Rouser, but I'll never ask you what color the sky is. I'll go check it out myself.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>And if you will note, in no way does the link in any way correlate mammograms with an increase in cancer rates, or causing cancer at all.


Nor does it even address the possibility.

>>I hate to say it Rouser, but I'll never ask you what color the sky is. I'll go check it out myself.

Good idea.

[MRC_Hans]

Profile, Rouser2, add to ignore list.


AHhhhhh!

:D Hans