How Mammograms Improve Survival but Not Mortality

[JenniferJuniper]

56. I'm 52 next week; never had one and never will

Routine screen, that is.

When I was 39 way back in 2001, The Lancet published the results of a massive Danish study conducted by researchers Olsen and Gotzsche. They came to the same conclusion - Routine mammography screenings do not save lives. After reading the entire study, I opted out of having one at age 40. The doctor I was seeing at the time treated me as if I were an imbecile and said he wasn't sure he could keep me as a patient if I refused to be screened. So I dumped him. The next doctor basically told me I was nuts for "risking my life" for no reason.

There's a reason alright.

As mammograms become more and more sensitive, more and more diagnoses of cancer or atypical cells are being made. That would be great if we could 1) find a way to determine whether these cancers or atypical cells will ever actually pose a health problem during a patient's lifetime (we don't live forever after all, only about 85 years), and 2) if we could actually save the lives of the women who have deadly cancers by finding them early.

Doctors can't do either of these things. So what they end up doing is finding and treating lots of slow growing and/or harmless cancers early and treating them - sometimes quite aggressively - and then patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Except little of this is actually saving lives and anyone who has gone through cancer treatment knows it's no walk in the park and can have adverse long-term health ramifications.

Women have been told a huge lie. Again and again and again. Any person or group who knew about the results of the Danish study in '01 (and it was all over the place; it totally freaked out the American Cancer Society and the Pink groups) and continued to publicly advocate for routine mammography screenings is complicit in a conspiracy. Early detection not only prevents nothing, it does more harm than good.