Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hey June.. Small World!! :-) I agree with teh colonoscopy.. My Brothers - in - law have been urged to have them yearly as their father died of Cancer of the colon. Each time they have found the beginning stages of cancer in their bowels... it's been going on 8 years now since they began and still NO sign that they have cancer at ALL.. I their case it has saved their lives!! Lynda june1 <june1 wrote: This is a hard decision that everyone has to make. I am a survivor because of a mammogram. You could not feel the lump, but it was there according to the mammogram. .9 centimeters. It was caught early enough that I did not have to have chemo or radiation. Also colonoscopy is very important. I had one last year and they found a polyp. It is painless and it will save your life. June - Judy Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:11 AM Emailing: index.htm Elaine, this subject is on my mind alot. It has been a year since my mother died of breast cancer. Actually it had gone to about every organ after about a year from the mastectomy. She was one of those who took antibiotics for everything and anything. It is nearing my time for my yearly exam, and I am having second thoughts. I am also seeing my regular GP, and I know he is going to get after me about a colonoscopy. What are your views on these subjects. Judy Breast cancer screening - a good thing? How all our massive screening efforts for breast cancer can cause the very disease they are intended to detect. Some 25,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year in Britain and 180,000 in the US. Thirteen thousand British and a hundred thousand American women will die of the disease each year. In 1990, the UK government introduced a national breast screening programme, in which women aged between 50-64 are invited for a mammogram an x-ray of the breast supposedly to detect abnormalities every three years. Women over 65 will be screened on request. However, there is growing evidence that mammograms which, like any x-ray, involve zapping the patient with radiation can be positively harmful and even cause the disease they are intended to detect. A Canadian study, which has yet to be published in full, seems set to confirm the findings of earlier research which clearly suggests that you are more likely to die from cancer if you undergo screening than if you don't. The Canadian study, using the National Breast Cancer Screening Trial, is examining the effect of mammography on women under 50. Data released so far suggests that women whose cancer was detected through mammograms have a shorter life expectancy than those who used self examination alone. Such concerns are far from new. As long ago as the early 1980s, the late Dr Robert Mendelsohn, in Male Practice, How Doctors Manipulate Women (Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982), wrote: "I have been warning for years that annual mammographic screening of women without symptoms may produce more cancer than it detects." Mendelsohn quoted Dr C Bailar III, editor in chief of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, as making the same point in a 1975 report. "His conclusion was supported by numerous studies, which suggested that accumulated x-ray doses in excess of 100 rads over 10 to 15 years may induce cancer of the breast," said Mendelsohn. Although mass screening in the UK is at an early stage, the experience of other countries suggests that mammograms have a high rate of inaccuracy. In Canada, during the first four years of an eight year trial, some 70 per cent of test results were unacceptable. Only in the last two years of the trial were more than half the tests up to the required standard. This gross level of inaccuracy may be one reason why mass screening for breast cancer by mammography hasn't made much difference to survival rates. As Switzerland's Johannes Schmidt pointed out in his letter to The Lancet: "We should not overlook the finding that breast cancer mortality has remained unchanged for decades despite huge efforts to improve early detection and local treatment." Writing in The Lancet recently, Kopans and others confirm the prevailing view that the death rate from breast cancer remains unchanged.British medical opinion continues to downplay the importance of physical examination, which has no known side effects, in favour of mammography, which has plenty. This attitude was compounded last year when outgoing chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, in a series of off the cuff remarks at a press conference, condemned self examination as a waste of time. Acheson's pronouncements, which received wide publicity, were apparently based on nothing more than his own personal prejudices, and contradicted the evidence of numerous studies and the guidance being issued by his own department. Health officials moved quickly to try to repair the damage done by his remarks by talking about the need for general "breast awareness", rather than actual examination confusing everyone even more.Others were less concerned with saving Acheson's face and more concerned about saving women's breasts. Writing to the Times soon after Acheson's comments (23 September 1991), Roger Taylor, consultant clinical oncologist at Cookridge Hospital's regional radiotherapy centre, said: "Some cancers which can be felt on clinical examination are undetected by a mammogram." Dr Joan Austoker, an adviser to Dr Kenneth Calman Acheson's successor, told the Sunday Times (6 October 1991): "What [Acheson] did not say is that more than 90 per cent of breast tumours are found by the women themselves." What you can do without haveing a mammogram Make sure your doctor knows that just because you don't want a mammogram, it doesn't mean you don't want your breasts checked. You can tell your doctor you want a physical examination and to be taught how to do it yourself. If he is unwilling or has limited experience of physical examinations, you might ask to be referred to a clinic where these are routinely carried out, or find a doctor with a less rigid approach.If you do decide to have a mammogram, shop around. Find out if the equipment to be used is dedicated that is, specially designed for mammography and therefore able to give the best image with the least radiation. Ask how many mammograms the lab does. The American College of Radiology recommends using a facility where each radiologist reads at least 10 mammograms a week. When was the machine last inspected and calibrated to check it is giving out the intended dose of radiation? Machines should be tested at least once a year. If a lump is found, either through mammography or self examination, you need to establish whether or not it is malignant. Some harmless cysts can be identified as such through a physical examination. If your doctors tells you it's a cyst but still suggests sending you for a biopsy, find out if it's really necessary. Is he just sending you off unnecessarily because he thinks it will put your mind are rest? A benign lump often changes with your cycle, becoming more tender before a period; a cancerous one won't. If a lump is benign, returning each year for mammograms "just in case", is likely to serve only to create a problem where none existed. Dr Ellen Grant, author of The Bitter Pill, warns that a benign lump indicates that your anti-oxidation systems aren't working properly. (The anti-oxidant defence system acts like a fire brigade to snuff out the combustion that goes on in cells when oxygen is used to burn food for energy or foreign germs. Without adequate anti-oxidants, these little "fires" can damage cells and, eventually, the immune system.) Radition from repeated x-rays will deplete your body's supply of anti-oxidating nutrients further, making cancer more likely. Subscribe to What Doctor's Don't Tell You - CLICK HERE… Next story… The Cancer Handbook The Cancer Handbook brings together everything of note we have ever published about this dread disease, and the treatments for it. It explores many of the likely causes and lists preventative steps that can be taken. The booklet analyses the conventional treatments, before looking at the alternatives on offer. Click here to order… E-news Register here to receive our health news update service, e-mailed to you every week.View archived e-news, click here… FREE HEALTH FACTSHEETS Choose from a range of FREE factsheets on specific illnesses and health issues - subjects such as cancer, arthritis, heart disease, MMR and other vaccinations, menopause, drug reactions, etc Our fact sheets are designed to help you make informed decisions.Free factsheets, click here… Subscribe to WDDTY for £2.33 per month. What Doctors Don’t Tell You is a monthly newsletter that helps you make an informed decision on your health and medicine by giving you the facts. It explains what works, what doesn’t and what may harm you in orthodox and alternative medicines.Subscribe here.. FREE REPORT"HOW TO LIVE TO 100" A hundred of the best health secrets you won't read anywhere else. Please feel free to send this on to a friend.FREE PDF Download, click here… home | | login | latest issue | shop | about | contact . Site Design and Programming: Iconix Web site support and feedback: email us«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you believe in something, and believe in it long enough, it will come into being." ~ Rolling Thunder ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Wow I think I am getting a message here. I may just think I might need another colonoscopy. My mom had colon cancer 3xs Hi Lynda, yah small world....... June - Lynda Brasier Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:31 AM Re: June -Emailing: index.htm Hey June.. Small World!! :-) I agree with teh colonoscopy.. My Brothers - in - law have been urged to have them yearly as their father died of Cancer of the colon. Each time they have found the beginning stages of cancer in their bowels... it's been going on 8 years now since they began and still NO sign that they have cancer at ALL.. I their case it has saved their lives!! Lynda june1 <june1 wrote: This is a hard decision that everyone has to make. I am a survivor because of a mammogram. You could not feel the lump, but it was there according to the mammogram. .9 centimeters. It was caught early enough that I did not have to have chemo or radiation. Also colonoscopy is very important. I had one last year and they found a polyp. It is painless and it will save your life. June - Judy Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:11 AM Emailing: index.htm Elaine, this subject is on my mind alot. It has been a year since my mother died of breast cancer. Actually it had gone to about every organ after about a year from the mastectomy. She was one of those who took antibiotics for everything and anything. It is nearing my time for my yearly exam, and I am having second thoughts. I am also seeing my regular GP, and I know he is going to get after me about a colonoscopy. What are your views on these subjects. Judy Breast cancer screening - a good thing? How all our massive screening efforts for breast cancer can cause the very disease they are intended to detect. Some 25,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year in Britain and 180,000 in the US. Thirteen thousand British and a hundred thousand American women will die of the disease each year. In 1990, the UK government introduced a national breast screening programme, in which women aged between 50-64 are invited for a mammogram an x-ray of the breast supposedly to detect abnormalities every three years. Women over 65 will be screened on request. However, there is growing evidence that mammograms which, like any x-ray, involve zapping the patient with radiation can be positively harmful and even cause the disease they are intended to detect. A Canadian study, which has yet to be published in full, seems set to confirm the findings of earlier research which clearly suggests that you are more likely to die from cancer if you undergo screening than if you don't. The Canadian study, using the National Breast Cancer Screening Trial, is examining the effect of mammography on women under 50. Data released so far suggests that women whose cancer was detected through mammograms have a shorter life expectancy than those who used self examination alone. Such concerns are far from new. As long ago as the early 1980s, the late Dr Robert Mendelsohn, in Male Practice, How Doctors Manipulate Women (Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982), wrote: "I have been warning for years that annual mammographic screening of women without symptoms may produce more cancer than it detects." Mendelsohn quoted Dr C Bailar III, editor in chief of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, as making the same point in a 1975 report. "His conclusion was supported by numerous studies, which suggested that accumulated x-ray doses in excess of 100 rads over 10 to 15 years may induce cancer of the breast," said Mendelsohn. Although mass screening in the UK is at an early stage, the experience of other countries suggests that mammograms have a high rate of inaccuracy. In Canada, during the first four years of an eight year trial, some 70 per cent of test results were unacceptable. Only in the last two years of the trial were more than half the tests up to the required standard. This gross level of inaccuracy may be one reason why mass screening for breast cancer by mammography hasn't made much difference to survival rates. As Switzerland's Johannes Schmidt pointed out in his letter to The Lancet: "We should not overlook the finding that breast cancer mortality has remained unchanged for decades despite huge efforts to improve early detection and local treatment." Writing in The Lancet recently, Kopans and others confirm the prevailing view that the death rate from breast cancer remains unchanged.British medical opinion continues to downplay the importance of physical examination, which has no known side effects, in favour of mammography, which has plenty. This attitude was compounded last year when outgoing chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, in a series of off the cuff remarks at a press conference, condemned self examination as a waste of time. Acheson's pronouncements, which received wide publicity, were apparently based on nothing more than his own personal prejudices, and contradicted the evidence of numerous studies and the guidance being issued by his own department. Health officials moved quickly to try to repair the damage done by his remarks by talking about the need for general "breast awareness", rather than actual examination confusing everyone even more.Others were less concerned with saving Acheson's face and more concerned about saving women's breasts. Writing to the Times soon after Acheson's comments (23 September 1991), Roger Taylor, consultant clinical oncologist at Cookridge Hospital's regional radiotherapy centre, said: "Some cancers which can be felt on clinical examination are undetected by a mammogram." Dr Joan Austoker, an adviser to Dr Kenneth Calman Acheson's successor, told the Sunday Times (6 October 1991): "What [Acheson] did not say is that more than 90 per cent of breast tumours are found by the women themselves." What you can do without haveing a mammogram Make sure your doctor knows that just because you don't want a mammogram, it doesn't mean you don't want your breasts checked. You can tell your doctor you want a physical examination and to be taught how to do it yourself. If he is unwilling or has limited experience of physical examinations, you might ask to be referred to a clinic where these are routinely carried out, or find a doctor with a less rigid approach.If you do decide to have a mammogram, shop around. Find out if the equipment to be used is dedicated that is, specially designed for mammography and therefore able to give the best image with the least radiation. Ask how many mammograms the lab does. The American College of Radiology recommends using a facility where each radiologist reads at least 10 mammograms a week. When was the machine last inspected and calibrated to check it is giving out the intended dose of radiation? Machines should be tested at least once a year. If a lump is found, either through mammography or self examination, you need to establish whether or not it is malignant. Some harmless cysts can be identified as such through a physical examination. If your doctors tells you it's a cyst but still suggests sending you for a biopsy, find out if it's really necessary. Is he just sending you off unnecessarily because he thinks it will put your mind are rest? A benign lump often changes with your cycle, becoming more tender before a period; a cancerous one won't. If a lump is benign, returning each year for mammograms "just in case", is likely to serve only to create a problem where none existed. Dr Ellen Grant, author of The Bitter Pill, warns that a benign lump indicates that your anti-oxidation systems aren't working properly. (The anti-oxidant defence system acts like a fire brigade to snuff out the combustion that goes on in cells when oxygen is used to burn food for energy or foreign germs. Without adequate anti-oxidants, these little "fires" can damage cells and, eventually, the immune system.) Radition from repeated x-rays will deplete your body's supply of anti-oxidating nutrients further, making cancer more likely. Subscribe to What Doctor's Don't Tell You - CLICK HERE… Next story… The Cancer Handbook The Cancer Handbook brings together everything of note we have ever published about this dread disease, and the treatments for it. It explores many of the likely causes and lists preventative steps that can be taken. The booklet analyses the conventional treatments, before looking at the alternatives on offer. Click here to order… E-news Register here to receive our health news update service, e-mailed to you every week.View archived e-news, click here… FREE HEALTH FACTSHEETS Choose from a range of FREE factsheets on specific illnesses and health issues - subjects such as cancer, arthritis, heart disease, MMR and other vaccinations, menopause, drug reactions, etc Our fact sheets are designed to help you make informed decisions.Free factsheets, click here… Subscribe to WDDTY for £2.33 per month. What Doctors Don’t Tell You is a monthly newsletter that helps you make an informed decision on your health and medicine by giving you the facts. It explains what works, what doesn’t and what may harm you in orthodox and alternative medicines.Subscribe here.. FREE REPORT"HOW TO LIVE TO 100" A hundred of the best health secrets you won't read anywhere else. Please feel free to send this on to a friend.FREE PDF Download, click here… home | | login | latest issue | shop | about | contact . Site Design and Programming: Iconix Web site support and feedback: email us«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion.. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you believe in something, and believe in it long enough, it will come into being." ~ Rolling Thunder ~ «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.