Social Sharing block
At some point during my teenage years, I became aware that when I grew up, I’d have to get a mammogram, and it was clear that it would hurt.
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
If you’re a woman over 40 (or you’ve talked to women over 40 about this topic), you probably know that this annual screening requirement for all women is uncomfortable at best and can be painful. Imagine, a woman who lives into her 80s might have to undergo this test 40 or more times throughout her life!
But it’s a lifesaving test that all women (and some men) need.
Now, I’m a medical imaging researcher, and I know that a less painful alternative to breast cancer screening is possible within my lifetime. I have a goal some might consider outrageous: to create a viable alternative to mammograms that’s pain-free, highly accurate, and can save even more lives than mammograms currently do.
…
Comments
The Mammography Myth
Re: mammography is "a lifesaving test that all women (and some men) need." (you link this to Komen as "proof" of this claim in your article, see above)
Not so!
Contrary to the official narrative (which is based on medical business-fabricated pro-mammogram "scientific" data), there is marginal, if any, reliable evidence that routine mammography – whether conventional, digital (3D), or AI-assisted – reduces mortality from breast cancer in a significant way in ANY age bracket:
"...the benefits of mass population screening, even in older women, are too small and the harm and cost generated too great to justify widespread implementation of screening mammography as a publicly funded health measure." (Charles J. Wright, M.D. & C. Barber Mueller, M.D., in The Lancet, 1995 [https://archive.ph/YU2LT])
BUT a lot of solid evidence shows the procedure does provide more serious harm than serious benefit (read the books: 'Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy' by Peter Gotzsche [https://www.amazon.com/Mammography-Screening-Truth-Lies-Controversy/dp/1846195853] and 'The Mammogram Myth' by Rolf Hefti - see author's synopsis at https://www.rolf-hefti.com/mammograms.html ).
IF........ women (and men) at large were to examine the mammogram data above and beyond the information of the mammogram business cartel (eg American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Komen), they'd also find that it is almost exclusively the big profiteers of the test, ie. the "experts," (eg radiologists, oncologists, medical trade associations, breast cancer "charities" etc) who promote the mass use of the test and that most pro-mammogram "research" is conducted by people with massive vested interests tied to the mammogram industry.
Most women (and men) are fooled by the misleading medical mantra that early detection by mammography saves lives simply because the public has been fed ("educated" or rather brainwashed) with a very one-sided biased pro-mammogram set of information circulated by the big business of mainstream medicine and their allied corrupt pawns in the governments. The above mentioned two independent investigative works show that early detection does not mean that there is less breast cancer mortality.
“Maintenance of the mammogram myth requires three factors: denial, intimidation and fraud.” ---Daniel Corcos, M.D., Ph.D., Medical Researcher & Cancer Biologist of INSERM [the French National Institute of Health, the equivalent of the U.S. National Institute of Health, a.k.a NIH], in 2018 [https://archive.ph/G3B5U]
Yet...
"I've come to realize that the biggest problem anywhere in the world is that people's perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of WHAT THEY WANT, AND DO NOT WANT, TO BE TRUE." --- Travis Walton, Author
"Ignorance is the root cause of all Evil. Since only Knowledge eradicates ignorance, it is our duty and moral obligation to educate ourselves, as well as the masses around us." --- Anonymous
QD Response
Quality Digest doesn't typically wade into the comments section, but when a discussion touches on decisions that affect people's health, we think it's important to do so.
Yes, debate over population-level mammography screening is real: Gøtzsche's work and the Wright & Mueller Lancet paper are legitimate contributions to it, and the author of this article implicitly acknowledges mammography's limitations as her motivation for seeking a better alternative.
However, characterizing the ACS, NCI, and Komen as a "cartel" with "corrupt pawns in government" is rhetoric, not fact. Also, Rolf Hefti, cited alongside Gøtzsche as an equivalent authority, is not a medical researcher; he's a self-published author who runs a website selling health content—and Travis Walton is the subject of a 1975 alleged alien abduction (inspired the film Fire in the Sky).
The evidence questions about mammography screening are worth taking seriously on their own merits.
Add new comment