Originally published October 24 2012
New science shows ultrasounds work better than mammograms at detecting breast cancer
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The annual ritual of radioactive breast poisoning known as mammography has taken a huge hit in the scientific community, as a new study out of Seattle, Washington, recently found that simple ultrasounds, which emit harmless sound waves rather than ionizing radiation, work far better than mammograms at detecting malignant breast tumors.
An analysis conducted by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) reveals that, overall, ultrasounds have a 95.7 percent sensitivity rate in detecting malignant tumor cells while mammograms are only 60.9 percent sensitive, by comparison. Among 1,208 cases evaluated, ultrasounds also successfully detected about 57 percent more harmful breast cancers compared to mammograms.
Dr. Constance Lehman, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Radiology at SCCA and her colleagues observed that, particularly among women aged 30 to 39, ultrasounds are a safer and more effective alternative to mammograms as a breast cancer screening tool. Based on her and her team's findings, it now appears prudent to switch gears and perhaps ditch mammography altogether.
"In women under 40, ultrasound is better at evaluating breast lumps compared to mammography," said Lehman about the findings, which were published recently in the American Journal of Roentgenology. Though Lehman still recommends mammograms for women over age 40, her study's findings illustrate that they are an unnecessary risk.
Earlier study finds ultrasounds far more effective than mammograms
A New Zealand study published in the American Journal of Surgery back in 2004 clearly illustrates this point, having found that ultrasound is "significantly better than mammography for detecting invasive breast cancer," having demonstrated a 92 percent success rate. Combining both mammography and ultrasound, on the other hand, only increased breast cancer detection by nine percent, which may represent statistical insignificance.
Ultrasounds also work better than mammograms at detecting cancer tumors in denser breast tissue. A Connecticut women, for example, was diagnosed earlier this year with stage 3C breast cancer after getting an ultrasound following a mammogram. The mammogram falsely indicated no tumors, while the ultrasound told the real story.
Mammograms cause cancer; ultrasounds do not
Steering clear of mammography becomes a whole lot easier, even in spite of intense social pressure, once women realize that the technology actually causes breast cancer. Besides its questionable efficacy, mammography has been shown in numerous studies to significantly increase women's risk of developing breast tumors.
There is a reason why health bureaucracies and the medical community at large have had such difficulty establishing guidelines for when and how often women of various ages should get mammograms -- the risks of getting mammograms are so verifiably high that they appear to cause far more harm than good.
"The complete and utter hoax of mammography has now been wholly discredited through a flurry of groundbreaking studies performed by conventional medicine researchers," wrote Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in a commentary several years ago, when the truth about mammograms was finally starting to gain momentum.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.seattlecca.org
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15474430
http://articles.courant.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_breast_cancer.html
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml