Does Breast Screening Really Reduce Deaths?

Study questions whether screening really cuts breast cancer deaths

ScienceDaily (2010-04-12) -- A study from Denmark finds no effect of the Danish screening program on breast cancer deaths. ... > read full article

Call For A Differing Viewpoint

UPDATE 25 August:  Pink Cause Marketing at it highest may not be its best.  Sheryl Crow today announced she has aligned with a chain of breast imaging centers, marketed as "Pink Lotus Breast Center". 

The center does not offer the state-of-the-art Thermography that detects cancer 10 years earlier than mammogram.

UPDATE 4 August: For many years the Women's Health section on my original website, Natural Healing through Natural Health, has had a great amount of information about the actual rate of cure using the current breast cancer paradigm.  Today, this article from one of the UK major news venues solidifies these old findings once again.  

Women must be told the truth and they must be provided with prevention and better options.  Men also must be included in this discussion because they too can develop breast cancer.

Breast cancer test questioned as study finds only one life saved per 258 women screened

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1300169/Breast-cancer-screening-harm-women-helps.html#ixzz0vgBYwRFQ

6/30/10: It is certainly well past time to look for better and safer screening for all disease, especially when we know mammography promotes breast cancer...

Researchers Suggest New Paradigm For Breast Cancer Screening 

Should we spend more money urging women to use mammography screening on a regular basis or should those dollars and effort be used for discovering and developing better early detection tests?
In an editorial published online June 29 in issue 14 of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, MPH, of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC, and Diana S.M. Buist, PhD, MPH of Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, suggest the latter, pointing to the limitations of mammography and calling it an "imperfect technology."
Their editorial accompanies a review and meta-analysis by Sally W. Vernon, MD, and colleagues of the effectiveness of intervention strategies such as educational outreach, counseling and simple reminders to encourage women to get repeat mammograms. In their editorial, Mandelblatt and Buist call the results "sobering" because behavioral interventions appear to only increase repeat screening rates by a small or moderate amount with insufficient evidence to know which approaches are the most effective.
"These results are all the more discouraging since the reviewed studies focused on getting women to undergo only one to two repeat screening examinations, not the 12 to 13 presently recommended for average risk women biennially from age 50 to 74," they write.
The reasons why interventions fail could be because "women are making an informed choice not to use an imperfect technology" the authors write. They point to media attention highlighting the fact that mammograms miss many cancers while detecting lesions that are false positives or ones that are never destined to become cancer.
Noting studies that suggest women with an increased risk of developing breast cancer have greater adherence to routine screening, the authors say interventions might be more effective in such subgroups, though this was not examined by the meta-analysis.
Mandelblatt and Buist also support the use of modeling to help understand the various factors that impact screening. Specifically, they highlight the work of the NCI-funded Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) as an excellent example of the application of modeling to determine the most profitable avenues for intervention. Mandelblatt and others from CISNET are collaborating with Buist and her colleagues from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium on modeling research to examine how risk level affects choice of screening modality and optimal ages of use.
Still, the authors offer a strong recommendation in order to realize the promise of eliminating the burden of cancer. "It could be reasonably argued that we should better spend our efforts in discovering better early detection tests.
"New paradigms guided by evidence from modeling, novel trials and new scientific discovery will be needed."
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Mandelblatt and Buist report no related financial interests.
---

Story from http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=1886725
Published: 2010/06/30

from 32 related posts on Natural Health News

Natural Health News: Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

May 21, 2010

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...

Better to Screen You with Thermography, My Dear...

Oct 23, 2009

"Rethink" of Cancer Screening Triggers Comments and Controversy By Nick Mulcahy October 23, 2009 — In a comment that has triggered widespread media coverage, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) admitted that ...

Ultrasound in Cancer Detection

Oct 07, 2009

If you're fortunate enough to be living near Toronto, your choice for breast screening for about 10 years could have been Thermography Clinic, Inc., a company started in 1998 as an integrative medical practice specializing in the care ...

Women kept in the dark when it comes to their health

Feb 20, 2009

I heard this same song from a local hospital administrator when I queried him why his facility was not offering thermography. His reply was that there weren't any studies. I replied that there were studies and sent him several ...

Airport X-Ray Machines: UPDATE

4 August - Police agencies admit to saving body scan images 
Capabilities of the checkpoint security machines are still shrouded in mystery

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561251/ns/technology_and_science-security

Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.

The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners (shown below) — in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray (shown above) — which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.
According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.
The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.
The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."

As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.
The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET report notes that while the machines are built to "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide networked "high-speed transfer of image data," the system are built with filters to "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."

7/17/10 New body-scanner software to show only stick figures

Boston's Logan International Airport hopes to be the first airport in the country to get new software that should eliminate privacy concerns over full-body scanners at security checkpoints.

The software would produce stick-figure images of passengers instead of the more revealing images currently viewed by operators at remote stations.

The software would detect suspicious objects on passengers that require further attention - such as possible weapons or explosives - allowing Transportation Security Administration screeners and explosive weapons specialists to hone in on them and determine whether they pose a danger.

6/29/10  Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert:

June 29, 2010 Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert 30 Jun 2010 Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn. The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. Scientists say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

1/11/10 Airport Scanners Save and Transmit Scanners, ordered by TSA

Better airport security in Israel

1/5/10 Updates re: Scanner Scam
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam

1/3/10 - "Body scanner wouldn't have foiled syringe bomber, says MP who worked on new machines" Read complete article

T-Waves: A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done...
" Drawing on sources like The Mayo Clinic and The Radiological Society of North America as well as interviews with prominent radiologists, molecular biologists, and medical doctors, ionizing (penetrating) radiation in any dose, no matter how tiny, causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing radiation."  Read complete article 

12/29/09 - While India rejected airport sreening in the past, the Netherlands has adopted the process for flights to the US.  As this happens people wonder if there is anyone in charge at TSA and/or DHS ( a department we could rightfully have done without and one that now should be abandoned - think of all the trillions we'd save ) and Obama says no one at DHS is doing thier job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was originally Posted in 2006, based on 2005 reports, but seems to be current discussions, and needs to be considered by those who have concerns about their health.

10 second exposure with backscatter=2 minutes in cabin radiation exposure.
FMI: Whole Body Imaging Technology, see what the x-ray machine sees.
----------------------------------------------------------
from repost in 10/2008:

At the same time as the US Homeland Security Department is pushing for airport x-ray machines that expose your privacy, Germany is calling a halt to this non-sense.

Probably it is worth your consideration to consider using some protective measures and to help clear the radiation exposure effects (iodine, kelp baths, our bath salt blend for chemo/radiation patients) if you're planning to travel by air.

Germany says full-body airport scanner "nonsense"
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, its interior ministry said on Friday.

"I can tell you in all clarity that we will not take part in this nonsense," a spokeswoman for the interior ministry told a regular news conference.

The executive European Commission proposed last month to add body scanners to a list of security measures that can be used at airports in the 27-country bloc.

EU lawmakers criticized the scanners in a resolution on Thursday, saying they were equivalent to "a virtual strip search" and raised serious human rights concerns. The lawmakers called for a detailed study of the technology before it is used.

The Commission says a number of EU states including the Netherlands already use body scanners and the EU executive wanted to harmonize conditions in which they can be operated.

The scanners do not exist at German airports and have sparked vivid criticism by politicians across the political spectrum.

(Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Matthew Jones)

This was posted in 2006. I've noticed a number of inquiries on the topic of airport x-rays, so I am posting it again.

So you plan to take an airplane trip in the future you say. Well now that the illustrious Department of Homeland Security is going to force you to be X-rayed, what is it that they have told you about the cumulative effects of exposure to gamma radiation in their so-called 'security" screener?

How much more cancer risk do you need? And just what long term studies have been done, especially when considering frequent flyer risk.

I guess I would want more data.

LOS ANGELES (Dec. 20) - A woman mistakenly put her 1-month-old grandson through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said.

Security stations at Los Angeles International Airport Damian Dovarganes, AP

A woman mistakenly put her infant grandson through a security X-ray at Los Angeles International Airport Saturday. Doctors said the 1-month-old did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation.

A startled security worker noticed the shape of a child on the carry-on baggage screening monitor and immediately pulled him out, the Los Angeles Times reported for a story in Wednesday's editions.

The infant was taken to a local hospital, where doctors determined he did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation.

"This was an innocent mistake by an obviously inexperienced traveler," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city's airport agency.

The incident happened early Saturday, airport officials said.

Haney said in 1988, an infant in a car seat went through an X-ray machine at the Los Angeles airport.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

More for tired eyes

How To Massage Sore, Tired, Red Eyes
January 30, 2010

Massaging sore, tired, red eyes is very easy and very effective. I have excellent vision but I sometimes get sore eyes while using my computer or watching TV or on windy days.

Read and learn more

More about eye health

Medicare OKs Interferon for Glioblastoma Treatment

UPDATE: 28 April, 2010

Brain tumor growth linked to lowered expression of hundreds of immune function genes

ScienceDaily (2010-04-28) -- A new study links progression of a lethal type of brain tumor with reduced expression of more than 600 immune system genes, suggesting how complex the immune response is to the cancer and the resulting difficulty in targeting specific immune system proteins for treatment.  ... > read full article

While this is a good response from Medicare, the risks of kidney and liver failure with interferon are very high.

Natural Interferon exists, contact us for that information.

Ask Questions and Demand Answers!

Medicare Reversal Ignites Hope for Glioblastoma Patient
By John Fauber, Reporter, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/MedPage Today
April 09, 2010
Paula Oertel's brain tumor disappeared for nine years while she was on a drug not approved for her condition. The tumor returned when a move to a new home triggered a Medicare review -- and subsequent denial of coverage for the experimental treatment.

Now Medicare officials have decided she will be allowed to go back on the drug.

"I am hoping that it will help," Oertel said Friday. "I am hoping it will shrink the tumor and that my body can take over and fight it."

Oertel, 40, who now lives in Wautoma, Wis., with her mother, said she will begin giving herself interferon-beta injections on Saturday.

The decision to resume paying for the drug -- which is approved for treating multiple sclerosis, but not brain cancer -- comes after her story was told March 21 in the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today.

Medicare officials were not available for comment Friday, but a letter Thursday to Oertel's doctor, Mark Malkin, MD, chief of neuro-oncology at Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee says that after an independent review, Medicare will begin paying for the drug, which costs about $8,000 a month (see attached pdf).

"We read the entire case file very carefully," said the letter from Maximus Federal Services in New York, a company hired by Medicare to review Oertel's case. "Avonex (interferon) has been determined to be reasonable and necessary for this patient who has shown prolonged response to the drug in the past and who has no other appropriate treatment options at this time."

The big question: Will the drug have the same effect now that it did in the past?

Oertel's tumor is growing. Just in the last six weeks it has moved from her left frontal lobe to the right frontal lobe, said Malkin.

And the tumor's biology may have changed as well, allowing it to develop resistance to interferon.

"The tumor has never been bigger," said Malkin, who is also a professor of neurology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "That's what the delay has resulted in."

Oertel was first diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme 12 years ago when she was 29. The tumor is the same kind that killed U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts last year.

Oertel twice had undergone surgery and radiation, and both times the tumor returned within months.

At the time there were no approved drugs to treat the condition. As a last resort, doctors tried interferon, which has shown some promise but is not approved to treat brain cancer.

Within months the tumor disappeared, and for nine years there was no sign of it on repeated brain scans.

Medicare paid for the drug for those nine years.

Due to a mix up, Oertel temporarily lost her Medicare coverage when she moved from one county to another.

It was restored after a few months.

In the meantime, two drugs had been approved to treat glioblastoma. Doctors tried those first, but the tumor did not respond. When they tried to put her back on interferon, the local Medicare carrier refused to cover the drug. It provided no explanation.

Calls and e-mails by Malkin and his staff to various public officials and government offices failed to resolve the situation.

However, after Oertel's story appeared in the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today, Malkin got a call from the office of U.S. Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Oertel's congressman.

The Congressman's representative went to Oertel's home and got her to sign a form that led to the appeal to Maximus Federal Services, Malkin said.

"They (Maximus) asked if it was true that interferon is the only alternative for her," Malkin said.

Malkin cited the fact that it had worked so well for nine years.

"Paula is the only patient in my experience where it has worked that well," he said.

Last month, Malkin estimated that, without treatment, Oertel had only about five months to live.

He said it likely will take another month or two to know if the interferon is having an effect on the tumor.

There are three possibilities, Malkin said: It may be too late because the tumor has evolved so that interferon no longer has an effect; it could have partial benefit by shrinking the tumor and allowing Oertel to remain stable for a while; or it could allow her to go into remission indefinitely.

"I don't have a clue," Malkin said.

Even if Oertel eventually goes into remission, she is likely to get worse before she gets better, he said.

Oertel has been experiencing headaches and verbal and memory problems along with weakness on her right side. She walks with a cane.

"The tumor has a certain momentum of growth," Malkin said. "It may take the interferon a while to catch up with that."

See also Avastin
Search for 'glioma' related articles, there are 6 on Natural Health News.

What Health Stores are Permitted to Tell You

There was a news report earlier today about problems with supplements.  I was laughing pretty loudly when the noon news interviewed one of the study's authors about colloidal silver.  She said it makes you turn blue, and this couldn't be further from the truth.

This information just arrived in another newsletter I receive, and it certainly is timely.

While ficused for those who own and operate health food stores, I think the consumer surely has a right to the information.  It can help you be a better and more informed natural health advocate and shopper.

By Charles J. Raubicheck, Esq., Sidley & Austin
Given the many DSHEA-related legal and regulatory developments over the past several years, natural products retailers often ask: "What can I say when selling supplements and not break the law?" To update retailers who sell dietary supplements as to what health-related information about their products they can properly give their customers, this guide is was created by Natural Products Association and Natural Products Foundation general counsel, Sidley Austin.
Verbal communications from retailer to customer about the health benefits of dietary supplements should be based on reliable information from suppliers and other sources. Typically, this information is documented in one or more of the written forms described below. Further, a retailer can convey product health benefits by providing access to, or by distributing, these written materials themselves.
Label and Package
The primary source of health information about dietary supplements is the list of claims made on the product label (including the package). Under DSHEA, suppliers of dietary supplements are permitted to make claims about their products called "statements of nutritional support" (which must be substantiated by data maintained by the supplier). These statements include claims about:

(a) a benefit relating to a classic nutrient deficiency disease;

(b) how a product affects any part of the structure of the human body, (e.g., "Glucosamine helps promote connective tissue"), or any function of the human body (e.g.,"Echinacea helps support the immune system");

(c) the mechanism of action by which a product acts to maintain body structure or function;

(d) general well being.

The most prevalent of these types of claims in the current marketplace are structure/function claims [(b)]. As a starting point, a retailer can use the body structure or function claims made on the label and package when telling customers about product benefits.
However, explicit claims about how a given dietary supplement may play a role in preventing or treating a particular disease condition are not permitted by the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Hence, structure/function claims are often vague, or not sufficiently specific for some consumers. The quandary often faced by the retailer is how to help this type of customer. Certain disease-specific information may be imparted to the customer, but only under the conditions explained in sections 3 through 6 below.

Promotional Literature
Structure/function claims can also be made in promotional materials for supplements e.g., brochures, booklets, flyers). These materials are allowed to be displayed and offered to consumers in retail stores. They are usually placed adjacent to the producton the shelf, in a product information section, or on a counter near a cash register.
Often, a supplier will make one or more structure/function claims in a promotional piece that is not made on the label or package. It therefore pays the retailer to be familiar with the promotional literature provided by suppliers.
Third Party Literature
Under DSHEA, publications written by third parties about the health benefits of dietary supplements may be distributed to consumers in connection with the sale of supplement products. This is so-called "third party literature."
Significantly, third party literature can lawfully discuss the role of dietary supplements in preventing or treating diseases, without subjecting the supplements to regulation by the FDA as drugs. To do so, the publication involved must satisfy all of the following conditions:

(i) it must be a reprint of an entire article authored by someone other than the supplier or retailer;
(ii) it must be physically separate in a store from the product it describes;
(iii) it must present a balanced view of available scientific information about the supplement and its health benefits;
(iv) it cannot mention the name of a manufacturer or the brand name of a product; and
(v) it cannot have any sticker or other information attached to it.

The obvious advantage to third party literature is that it can present health benefit information beyond structure/function claims, particularly statements about how a given dietary supplement can be useful in the prevention or treatment of some disease condition. Congress intentionally meant for consumers to have this type of information when it enacted the third party literature section of DSHEA. Many retailers may not be aware of this provision, or how to use it effectively.
To get the most advantage from third party literature, retailers should keep abreast of scientific studies or articles about particular dietary supplements, or request suppliers to supply them with third party literature pieces. Such pieces can be distributed by retailers directly to customers in retail stores (and can even be mailed with store catalogues). It is important, however, that these publications not mention particular companies or brands, or be displayed in a store in immediate physical proximity to the actual dietary supplements which are mentioned in the article.
Of notable importance, the piece should present a balanced view of available scientific information on the supplement being discussed. While neither Congress nor the FDA has defined "balanced" in the third party literature section of DSHEA, from other contexts this term can be construed to mean reporting or discussing negative or inconclusive studies as well as positive data, and not exaggerating benefits over known risks of taking a product.
To what extent can retailers talk to their customers about the information in a third party literature piece? This issue has not yet been addressed by the FDA or decided by the courts. While two recent court cases (Pearson and Washington Legal Foundation) suggest that some verbal communications about third party literature may be protected by the First Amendment, state laws governing the practice of medicine or pharmacy will have to be considered as well. Therefore, at this time, it is advisable to let third party literature pieces speak for themselves.
Software
Certain software programs that supply health benefit information about dietary supplements are available, and are intended for use in the retail sale context. The programs are designed to qualify as third party literature (note that DSHEA does not restrict the term "publication" to a published journal article). As such, specific diseases that supplements may help to prevent or treat are covered. These programs are offered for viewing by the consumer at kiosks or other discrete places, physically apart from supplement products, in a number of retail establishments.
Retailers should not verbally answer questions about, or summarize, software program information, for the reasons noted in section 3 above. They may tell consumers that they stock a particular type of dietary supplement, and where to find it in the store, but they should not mention particular companies or brands.
Book Section
DSHEA has an additional section whereby Congress explicitly recognizes the right of retailers to have separate sections in their stores (where no products are sold) in which they sell books and similar publications on dietary supplements. These books and publications can include information about disease prevention or treatment benefits of dietary supplements. They do not have to qualify as third party literature to do so.
Nonetheless, retailers should be careful about verbally summarizing books to customers; the publications are often lengthy, and may not always have balanced presentations about product-disease relationships. Again, the advisable course is to allow the books to speak for themselves.
Health Claims
Under the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the FDA has approved some health benefit claims (called "health claims") for dietary supplements. Health claims communicate the message that particular supplements play a role in reducing the risk of the occurrence of particular disease conditions. The permitted claims for supplements include the benefit of calcium in reducing the risk of developing osteoporosis, and the benefit of folic acid taken during pregnancy in preventing neural tube birth defects. There are other health claims permitted for particular foods (e.g., the benefit of low fat foods in reducing the risk of developing cancer; the benefit of soy protein in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease).
Health claims can be made on labels, packages and promotional literature. Retailers can use these sources to deliver the pertinent health benefit messages for the products involved.
Nutritional Benefits
The nutritional benefits provided by many dietary supplements, which can be gleaned from the Supplement Facts box on the product label, statements of nutritional support, third party literature, and books and other publications on particular supplements, can also be verbally communicated by retailers to consumers.
One caveat in this regard: a number of states have enacted dietitians' laws, which define "nutritional information" and state or imply that only licensed dietitians have the right to provide it. There have been a few states where the right of dietary supplement retailers to give nutritional information to their customers has been challenged by dietitians. NPA has consistently opposed these efforts, taking the position that DSHEA and the First Amendment permit retailers to verbally supply nutritional information that is supported by truthful and non-misleading labeling and other publications. To date, NPA has been successful in protecting retailers in this regard. However, individual retailers should check their own state laws and if any questions arise, should contact NPA.

SOURCE: http://naturalproductsfoundation.org/index.php?cid=203479&src=gendocs&ref=DSHEA_Quiz&category=FoundationPrograms&curlid=124

It must be a day for graphics at Natural Health News

"Neo" Health Care
By Rocky Vega, The Daily Reckoning

08/05/10 Alexandria, Virgina — This week, over 70 percent of Missourians voted for Prop C — to exempt the state from the federal insurance mandate — and, by extension, against President Obama’s health care plan. Three more states — Arizona, Florida, and Oklahoma — also have votes on deck with the hope of a possibly-binding opt out of the mandate.

From STLtoday’s coverage, via The Daily Bail’s post on the landslide vote:

“Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory…

“‘The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,’ said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation [...] With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1.”

Health Insurance Reform and how it works (sic), a flow chart from Congress