I've always suspected this was true, and have never had a mammogram (and never will), so I wasn't too surprised to finally see this in print:

[www.naturalnews.com]

A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's
Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303)
reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly
in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every
two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the
start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been
associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the
sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur
cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease
rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?

The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't
addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second
question has an unexpected and -- for those interested in the human body's
innate ability to heal itself -- potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The
researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on
more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women
remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received
mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this
indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have
spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and
treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears
that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the
body's own immune system.

Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health,
Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women
(age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three
rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the
Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the
number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies
among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and
who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in
place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after
six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to
assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.

The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast
cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with
mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer
at every age.

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the
screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated
mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single
mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report.
"This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected
invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on
what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening,
namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise
regress."

This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After
all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American
women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears
invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in
some people -- by the body's own innate defenses.

"Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence
associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be
considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous
regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent
literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small
number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed
out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that
regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers
are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."

In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the
breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of
California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal
Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern
raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens
to untreated patients with breast cancer.

"In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger
women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women.
We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without
knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ).
The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not
necessarily support the benefit of treatment."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2008 06:15AM by kwan.

The answers are here [www.germannewmedicine.ca]

The problem is not knowledge about cancer. The problem is our health system.
Symptom treatment is mandatory in this system because healthy and healed patients
are marginal in this profit oriented system.

Medicine does not distinguish between symptoms of illness and symptoms of healing. The latter are the most frequent. Hard treatments like chemo and radiation or antibiotics will stop healing and the symptoms (improvement for the worse).

Nothing in nature happens by random. Self healing is not spontaneous but is the rule, provided the reason for the disease will be cleared. This can happen by accidental change of living conditions (spontaneous healing?) or by intentional solving of the underlying cause.

The knowledge (German New Medicine®) is available and Therapists are also available, at least in my homeland Germany. This knowledge is spreading with increasing rate by underground media and study groups. The scientific literature is available in academic libraries and some book stores.

In health care there is a blatant class system of people that care for themselves, ask, find the information and the therapist, pay for it and get healed and those who don’t care, belief in free conventional symptom treatments and stay sick. The existing health system depends on the latter and will not change by evolution.

It is up to the individual to decide which way to go.

Both of your posts (and the link) make perfect sense. I have sensed this phenomenon with my older daughter, who has a lot of health problems. I, too, have never had a mammo and do not intend to have one (I'm 47).

Thanks for that,

I had one once because I was brow beaten. I went against my better judgment. It was awful.

My internal sense said no way can that be good for you while the machine squished me. I will not do it again.

Kit

Hmmmmm........

When I was 40, I had my first mammogram. Yup, the very first time. And sure enough, the mammogram said I had breast cancer. But not only did I have breast cancer, they figured out that it was really bad - all through my breast and beyond. (lymph nodes and who knows where else...)

So that's a good thing, right? I mean, really, it was important to know. But then they said I had to have all that bad stuff - chemotherapy,radiation, surgical procedures, including mastectomy, antibiotics galore, stress tests for my heart, a picc line (so they could pump that stuff directly into the heart!), a wig to hide my bald head, more surgery to rebuild the breast they lopped off (which I declined). Sure enough, mammograms sound pretty bad to me. To make matters worse, my hubby peeked at my records, and my doctor wrote down that a woman who was as far gone as me would probably not survive.

How unfair - good old self important, superior vegetarian me - how could this be? How could all my SAD friends and family be doing so well, when I was stuggling so?

Well, seriously, I did every single thing (except the reconstruction) that the doctors suggested, and I did survive against the odds, but was that because of that wonderful poison they subjected me to, or was it just a coincidence? What if I would have taken on a Gerson approach - I wonder how I would have made out... probably really good, but then again, who knows. Today I try real hard to stay with living foods, but it has been a journey. What seemed ideal to me not so long ago, sounds like a horrible idea today. (tofu for instance!)

I don't know if mammograms CAUSE breast cancer, but my sister had a horrible experience recently. She had an abnormality, which turned out to be nothing, but considering she had me as a sister, I can only imagine how scared she was, waiting to hear what the problem was. It seems unfair that she should have been scared so badly over nothing.

The ladies on my dragon boat team are mortified that I no longer go for mammograms, but I really feel, that I will know if I need one. I have nothing against them, I just don't need it right now. I think they are a good thing, but you must use this technology with intelligence. I know how I felt when I had cancer, and I am sure I will recognize it if it ever comes back. Once you know what that feels like, how do you ever forget?

Bottom line - everyone is responsible for their own choices, and we must all decide what is best for us as individuals. Whatever choice you make, you must be prepared to live with the results - no matter what that might be!

Wise words, Sapphire. You've had direct experience with this physical ordeal, and have come through it with such grace, determination and wisdom-- you inspire us all. As I was posting this article, I actually thought of you-- I wondered how you would feel about the subject line-- and I almost decided against it. I wanted to reassure you that I didn't think that YOU caused your own disease, but rather that if women have repeated mammograms over many years (some women have them faithfully over and over again year in and year out, apparently), the repeated doses of radiation can lead to cancer. Is this theory right? I don't think we'll ever really know, since there are so many factors involved.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

That's some mammogram, huh Sapphire. Kind of like getting pregnant the very first time.
Thank goodness you did survive against the odds. You seem like a good person to have in our world. For one thing, every post of yours I've ever read has been positive.

'Was it poison or coincidence' you say. Can we ever know? My friend was informed by her doctor she had cancer and she went ahead with a mastectomy just two days later! A couple years later she started wondering if the diagnosis was accurate in the first place. My hope was for her not to suffer over past decisions. I told her I'm sure she made the right decision at the time.

Glad your sis is okay.

'You must use this technology with intelligence'. I agree. I say ask yourself do you feel better getting mammograms. If yes then, by all means, do it! For me the answer is I feel much better not getting them. I am prepared to live with the results.
Health to us all. Kit