Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I'll take my chances. I work in a place that has 5 breast cancer survivors and if it wasn't for a mammogram I doubt they would be here today. 4 of them have passed the 5 year mark after surgery. ......................Donna Rick Stevens <ecology1st2004 wrote:Should you get mammograms? Here are three sources below arguing against mammograms. They all supply some interesting information. http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/mammograms.htm http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE & b=84628 http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/GetInformed/MammographyAndNewTech.html Rick. The all-new My - What will yours do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 i'm with you donna! i have a dear friend who is a breast cancer survivor (8 years) and she wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for a mammogram. susie --- GeminiDragon <thelilacflower wrote: > I'll take my chances. I work in a place that has 5 > breast cancer survivors and if it wasn't for a > mammogram I doubt they would be here today. 4 of > them have passed the 5 year mark after surgery. > ......................Donna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 My aunt didn't get one, cause she was afraid of x-rays...five years later had lots of pain and sickness...five years after that (and a very long battle with chemo and radiation...cancer spreading all through her body) she died. I will take the mamogram over the chemo and radiation any day. ~Mel --- " artichoke72x " <artichoke72x wrote: > i'm with you donna! i have a dear friend who is a > breast cancer survivor (8 years) and she wouldn't be > here today if it wasn't for a mammogram. > > susie > > --- GeminiDragon <thelilacflower wrote: > > > I'll take my chances. I work in a place that has > 5 > > breast cancer survivors and if it wasn't for a > > mammogram I doubt they would be here today. 4 of > > them have passed the 5 year mark after surgery. > > ......................Donna > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam > protection around > > Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Hi Donna, I of course respect your right to get a mammogram. After all, it's your life, However scientific studies are not baring out that mammograms save lives. Monthly, self exams by a woman are her best bet to detect early breast cancer. Ironically, mammograms might be causing so many false positive results, that woman actually end up getting chemotherapy, and radiation, falsely thinking they have cancer. Many times the doctor never completely proves the woman actually has cancer, yet they will poison and nuke anyway. This is scary stuff. This is rare, but not as rare as you think. My own grandmother had one of her breast removed because they suspected she had cancer, but after removing the breast, they were not able to prove she had cancer in the first place. That was about 10 years ago. I wanted her to take them to court, but she didn't. By the way, she's counted as a breast cancer survivor of course, even though they couldn't prove the cancer to actually be there. Another thing to keep in mind is that radiation, and chemo, are only effective against 20% of the types of cancer found in the breast, so sadly most woman are in big trouble if surgery alone doesn't work. Another misleading figure is the 5 year survival rate, because a tumor in the breast may be growing for 10 years before it's even picked up by mammogram, or otherwise. What this means is that if a woman lives for 5 or ten years after chemo, radiation, treatments, she may have well lived that long, or longer without having any treatments at all, simply do to the slow growth of some forms of breast cancer. A ten to twenty year survival rate would be a better proof provider than a 5 year rate, in the case of breast cancer. Sadly, I have an ex girlfriend that had to go through chemo, and radiation a couple years ago. The great news is that she's still alive. The bad news is that her quality of life is only about 25% of what it was before the chemo ravaged her body. She is still in constant pain from the effects of the chemo. The stuff even caused heart problems in her. Chemo is truly a nightmare. I hope with time she gets over a lot of it's effects though. By the way, she found her tumor through self examination. Also, keep in mind that the radiation in a mammogram may be causing more breast cancers than it's preventing. That's why so many groups are pushing for self exam over mammogram. As I said though, it's your life and I completely respect your right to choose whatever modality you feel comfortable with. I do hope you read the source material I provided in my email post though, as opposed to just my comments. Always look beneath the surface, Rick , GeminiDragon <thelilacflower> wrote: > I'll take my chances. I work in a place that has 5 breast cancer survivors and if it wasn't for a mammogram I doubt they would be here today. 4 of them have passed the 5 year mark after surgery. .......................Donna > > Rick Stevens <ecology1st2004> wrote:Should you get mammograms? > > Here are three sources below arguing against > mammograms. They all supply some interesting > information. > > > http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/mammograms.htm > > http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE & b=84628 > > http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/GetInformed/MammographyAndNewTech.html > > Rick. > > > > > > > > The all-new My - What will yours do? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I don't know how familiar with the statistics ... but I have gotten the impression that with large breasted women, self - breast exams are not terribly effective. That was what we were told with both my aunts (one of which is the one that died) i checked your links but couldn't figure out a way to find that info out...and don't remember where i heard/read it aside from doctors. --- ecology1st2004 <ecology1st2004 wrote: > > Hi Donna, > > I of course respect your right to get a mammogram. > After all, it's > your life, However scientific studies are not baring > out that > mammograms save lives. Monthly, self exams by a > woman are her best bet > to detect early breast cancer. Ironically, > mammograms might be causing > so many false positive results, that woman actually > end up getting > chemotherapy, and radiation, falsely thinking they > have cancer. Many > times the doctor never completely proves the woman > actually has > cancer, yet they will poison and nuke anyway. This > is scary stuff. > This is rare, but not as rare as you think. My own > grandmother had one > of her breast removed because they suspected she had > cancer, but after > removing the breast, they were not able to prove she > had cancer in the > first place. That was about 10 years ago. I wanted > her to take them to > court, but she didn't. By the way, she's counted as > a breast cancer > survivor of course, even though they couldn't prove > the cancer to > actually be there. > > Another thing to keep in mind is that radiation, and > chemo, are only > effective against 20% of the types of cancer found > in the breast, so > sadly most woman are in big trouble if surgery alone > doesn't work. > Another misleading figure is the 5 year survival > rate, because a tumor > in the breast may be growing for 10 years before > it's even picked up > by mammogram, or otherwise. What this means is that > if a woman lives > for 5 or ten years after chemo, radiation, > treatments, she may have > well lived that long, or longer without having any > treatments at all, > simply do to the slow growth of some forms of breast > cancer. A ten to > twenty year survival rate would be a better proof > provider than a 5 > year rate, in the case of breast cancer. Sadly, I > have an ex > girlfriend that had to go through chemo, and > radiation a couple years > ago. The great news is that she's still alive. The > bad news is that > her quality of life is only about 25% of what it was > before the chemo > ravaged her body. She is still in constant pain from > the effects of > the chemo. The stuff even caused heart problems in > her. Chemo is truly > a nightmare. I hope with time she gets over a lot of > it's effects > though. By the way, she found her tumor through self > examination. > > Also, keep in mind that the radiation in a mammogram > may be causing > more breast cancers than it's preventing. That's why > so many groups > are pushing for self exam over mammogram. As I said > though, it's your > life and I completely respect your right to choose > whatever modality > you feel comfortable with. I do hope you read the > source material I > provided in my email post though, as opposed to just > my comments. > > Always look beneath the surface, > > Rick > > > > > , > GeminiDragon > <thelilacflower> wrote: > > I'll take my chances. I work in a place that has > 5 breast cancer > survivors and if it wasn't for a mammogram I doubt > they would be here > today. 4 of them have passed the 5 year mark after > surgery. > ......................Donna > > > > Rick Stevens <ecology1st2004> wrote:Should > you get mammograms? > > > > Here are three sources below arguing against > > mammograms. They all supply some interesting > > information. > > > > > > > http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/mammograms.htm > > > > > http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE & b=84628 > > > > > http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/GetInformed/MammographyAndNewTech.html > > > > Rick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The all-new My - What will yours do? > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 My guess is that large breasted woman would have it tougher regarding self exams. Certainly makes sense. That leaves them in a hard choice as to whether they want to radiate themselves every year. Hopefully one day they'll come up with a safer test. Rick. , Melissa Hill <assilembob> wrote: > I don't know how familiar with the statistics ... but > I have gotten the impression that with large breasted > women, self - breast exams are not terribly effective. > That was what we were told with both my aunts (one of > which is the one that died) > i checked your links but couldn't figure out a way to > find that info out...and don't remember where i > heard/read it aside from doctors. > --- ecology1st2004 <ecology1st2004> wrote: > > > > > Hi Donna, > > > > I of course respect your right to get a mammogram. > > After all, it's > > your life, However scientific studies are not baring > > out that > > mammograms save lives. Monthly, self exams by a > > woman are her best bet > > to detect early breast cancer. Ironically, > > mammograms might be causing > > so many false positive results, that woman actually > > end up getting > > chemotherapy, and radiation, falsely thinking they > > have cancer. Many > > times the doctor never completely proves the woman > > actually has > > cancer, yet they will poison and nuke anyway. This > > is scary stuff. > > This is rare, but not as rare as you think. My own > > grandmother had one > > of her breast removed because they suspected she had > > cancer, but after > > removing the breast, they were not able to prove she > > had cancer in the > > first place. That was about 10 years ago. I wanted > > her to take them to > > court, but she didn't. By the way, she's counted as > > a breast cancer > > survivor of course, even though they couldn't prove > > the cancer to > > actually be there. > > > > Another thing to keep in mind is that radiation, and > > chemo, are only > > effective against 20% of the types of cancer found > > in the breast, so > > sadly most woman are in big trouble if surgery alone > > doesn't work. > > Another misleading figure is the 5 year survival > > rate, because a tumor > > in the breast may be growing for 10 years before > > it's even picked up > > by mammogram, or otherwise. What this means is that > > if a woman lives > > for 5 or ten years after chemo, radiation, > > treatments, she may have > > well lived that long, or longer without having any > > treatments at all, > > simply do to the slow growth of some forms of breast > > cancer. A ten to > > twenty year survival rate would be a better proof > > provider than a 5 > > year rate, in the case of breast cancer. Sadly, I > > have an ex > > girlfriend that had to go through chemo, and > > radiation a couple years > > ago. The great news is that she's still alive. The > > bad news is that > > her quality of life is only about 25% of what it was > > before the chemo > > ravaged her body. She is still in constant pain from > > the effects of > > the chemo. The stuff even caused heart problems in > > her. Chemo is truly > > a nightmare. I hope with time she gets over a lot of > > it's effects > > though. By the way, she found her tumor through self > > examination. > > > > Also, keep in mind that the radiation in a mammogram > > may be causing > > more breast cancers than it's preventing. That's why > > so many groups > > are pushing for self exam over mammogram. As I said > > though, it's your > > life and I completely respect your right to choose > > whatever modality > > you feel comfortable with. I do hope you read the > > source material I > > provided in my email post though, as opposed to just > > my comments. > > > > Always look beneath the surface, > > > > Rick > > > > > > > > > > , > > GeminiDragon > > <thelilacflower> wrote: > > > I'll take my chances. I work in a place that has > > 5 breast cancer > > survivors and if it wasn't for a mammogram I doubt > > they would be here > > today. 4 of them have passed the 5 year mark after > > surgery. > > ......................Donna > > > > > > Rick Stevens <ecology1st2004> wrote:Should > > you get mammograms? > > > > > > Here are three sources below arguing against > > > mammograms. They all supply some interesting > > > information. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/mammograms.htm > > > > > > > > > http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE & b=84628 > > > > > > > > > http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/GetInformed/MammographyAndNewTech.html > > > > > > Rick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The all-new My - What will yours do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.