Email this article to a friend

Printable Version

Articles Related to This Article: • The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine • Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt) • New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention Sign the Health Revolution Petition Join the call for genuine health freedom in America. End FDA tyranny and Big Pharma corruption. Watch the video and sign the petition here.

(NaturalNews) The National Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium recently published a disturbing in-depth study claiming that the ability of the radiologist who reads mammograms will greatly affect the accuracy of the result. "Obviously when a woman has a mammogram she wants to know if she has breast cancer" said study leader Diana Miglioretti, PhD an associate investigator, "especially if the woman has a breast concern". Ideally, the study claims there should be a uniformity which wouldn't depend entirely on the ability of the radiologist.

This in-depth research, covered by three universities, tested 123 radiologists and interpreted nearly 36,000 diagnostic mammograms. Different radiologists reported different results, ranging from 27 percent to 100 percent, with false positives up to 16 percent indicating there are obvious problems.

Mammograms interpreted by general radiologists who experience only a small percentage of mammogram diagnostics in their practice were the most inaccurate. Those based in academic medical centres fared best.

"There is a need for improved performance on how radiologists perform", said Miglioretti. "In the meantime women are urged to find an imaging specialist who spends a large percentage of time reading mammograms. There have been many instances of unnecessary surgery and breast removals; it is time to further educate radiologists".

One thing that was ignored in the report is the fact that there is considerable conjecture on whether mammograms are actually causing breast cancer.

Health experts and even many medical professionals claim they do more harm than good, not only because of the inaccurate readings, but by irradiating the breasts when testing, the possibility of cancer is greatly increased.

A survey reported in the prestigious Lancet Journal in 2006 claimed it took eight years before breast cancer could definitely be diagnosed and by then it was too late as the cancer had already spread.

The scare campaign promoted by the medical profession and the drug companies has resulted in 22% of women in the UK genuinely considering a double mastectomy in case they developed a problem. How insane is that?

As always prevention is the true answer, correct nutrition, and natural herbs, plenty of sunlight, exercise, eliminating stress and empowering yourself with information.

Sources:

University of Washington, University of California, Oregon Health and Science University, news-medical and Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

(www.NaturalNews.com)

About the author

Related CounterThink Cartoons:

Related Articles: • The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine • Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt) • New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention	Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com Email this article to a friend Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us Permalink to this article: http://www.NaturalNews.com/022729_cancer_radiologists_mammograms.html Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link. Embed article link: (copy HTML code below): <a href = "http://www.NaturalNews.com/022729_cancer_radiologists_mammograms.html">How Accurate Is Your Mammogram Reading?</a>