Ladies. This is Worrying.

[Python]

http://othernews.uk.myway.com/articl...43174A000.html

I've long held the belief that many of these tests are being done for no reason other than to boost statistics. Only a few weeks ago, our med profession stated that mammograms could increase the chances of developing breast cancer, so this latest finding doesn't surprise me at all.

I was invited for one of these mammograms earlier this year and was absolutely furious about it for three reasons. First, they couldn't even get my age right, so to start with that didn't inspire confidence, secondly, they took the liberty of actually making an appointment for me, just assuming I'd toddle along happily without question and thirdly, despite my phoning them and telling them I would not be attending and not to make a further appointment, about three weeks after they sent a letter stating since I had not attended for the mammogram they had booked me yet another appointment If they can't get basic things right, do they really think I'd trust them to get a mammogram right?

I emphasis at this point that this is only my own personal experience and opinion but I really think we need to think these things through logically and make informed decisions and not be led blindly up the garden path because the medical profession says that whatever test is the best thing since sliced bread.

Over here, the use of MRI scans is also being called into question because it would seem that people who have had MRI scans are subsequently put at a hugely greater risk of developing some form of cancer, due to the extremely high dosage of radiation they're exposed to. They are now trying to only do MRI scans if absolutely necessary.

Certainly food for thought.

[DeniseGoldberg]

I'd advise you to be very careful about what sites you use for health care information. Contrary to what the article you referenced states, screening mammograms along with clinical breast exams are the best there currently is for breast cancer detection. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have cancer detected early when there is still the possibility of a cure.

Here's a link to recommended screening for breast cancer as well as some statistical info from the National Cancer Institute, part of the US National Institutes of Health: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...ing-mammograms.

I have a family history of both breast cancer and colon cancer; you can bet I go for those screenings on a regular basis. And even if I didn't have a familiy history, I would have these screenings based on my doc's recommendations.

Only you can make the choice - it's your body and your health care.

--- Denise

[KnottedYet]

Cause vs. effect.

could be that folks who get MRIs get 'em because something seems not right, like the doc thinks they have cancer.

Later, as things develop, perhaps the cancer becomes more obvious and is diagnosed.

Or perhaps folks who've had one MRI due to worrisome symptoms are more likely to be given another later for suspicious symptoms, so their cancer is caught earlier, rather than growing until the mass can be seen with the naked eye or felt by hand.

I had cancer. Weird symptoms since then are first suspected to be cancer recurring. CTs and MRIs ruled out cancer for me for the new symptoms (guts, brain), and I am ever so grateful for them. But when/if my cancer comes back the docs are more likely to have ordered scans just because of my history.

You can prove anything with statistics.

(PS. I was under the impression that MRI's don't use radiation. They use magnets to align the atoms in yer body and use that info to get the picture)

[Python]

Denise. That didn't come from a website as such. It is in the newspapers and news and that is an internet link to the information. Over the past few weeks we've had quite a lot of it on the TV too, hence I said people need to make an informed decision based on the facts, both pros and cons.

Professor Michael Baum, professor emeritus of surgery and visiting professor of medical humanities at University College London, told the Daily Telegraph that until now his position was that women should make an informed choice based on the facts.

But he added: "This latest evidence shifts the balance even further towards harm and away from benefits. If this report stands up, the NHS screening programme should be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to decide whether it should be closed down.

These are very strong words and a very strong opinion from an eminent Professor.

As far as the MRI scans go, these are radiation based and a very high doseage at that. The problem seems to be some hospitals are using MRI scans as a matter of routine - even for minor complaints when they are not necessary. My son recently had an MRI scan - for appendicitis, and it didn't show up on the MRI scan so they treated him for something completely different - and he nearly ended up with a ruptured appendix, so they are not foolproof.

MRI scans are a relatively new concept and long-term side-effects are only just being discovered. There is no doubt that they can and do pick up things that would otherwise be missed but I really do believe that people need to start asking serious questions to their doctors - and get an answer based on hard, proven facts and not some statistical figure because as we all know statistics can be manipulated to suit any agenda.

All I'm saying ladies, is be careful and don't be afraid to ask questions, and if you're not happy with the answers, get a second opinion until you are satisfied.

PS. If it wasn't for the medical profession and the overall good job they do, my son wouldn't be alive today.

[Nanci]

MRI, magnetic resonnance imaging- does NOT use radiation.

Cat Scan, CT- that _does_ use radiation, though finely collimated, and the dose does not go all at once to the whole body, but each slice gets one small dose.

Now recently a study has shown that ultrasound can cause brain damage in mice. I wouldn't be surprised if routine obstetrical ultrasound becomes greatly reduced in the coming years.

Nanci

[margo49]

We already have a 1 in 9 (or even greater) chance of getting Breast cancer so what significant diff is the mammogram gonna make??
We're all phuqued anyway to the point where I think we can't avoid all the dangerous breast-cancer-inducing situations to which we have been or are being or will soon be exposed; so we might as well just concentrate on diagnosis and treatment

signed, margo the mono-tit who has no idea where it came from and doesn't care either because it's gone now and stayed gone for 10 years and counting

[PscyclePath]

Cause vs. effect.
(PS. I was under the impression that MRI's don't use radiation. They use magnets to align the atoms in yer body and use that info to get the picture)

"MRI" stands for "Magnetic Resonance Imaging." It works by placing you in a super-strong magnetic field, then by squirting in a burst of radiofrequency signal. This causes all the little protons in the water molecules of your body to flip, and a humonguous amoount of computer processing converts the signal absorption to a 3-D image. The math is downright UGLY, but it works. It's also why your credit cards won't work if you're foolish enough to take your wallet into the MRI center... (the magnetic field, that is... not the ugly math).

CAT is "Computerized Axial Tomography," which uses different radiant energy and even uglier math and computers to generate the images... but neither procedure will leave you feeling like a poster child for Illuminite.

TE