New Study Affirms: Mammograms Don’t Reduce Breast Cancer Death Risk

Science & Medicine

mammogramThe cancer industry– those companies and “Non-profit” organizations who make their millions off of the fear of the people and the perpetuating of misinformation—would have women think they need to have their breasts squished in mammogram machines every single year starting at the age  of 40. This propaganda campaign has been so effective that women shame one another when they discover one doesn’t get regular mammograms. But yet another study into the effectiveness of mammograms in reducing the risk of death by cancer has found the tests are simply not worth it.

Published in the BMJ, the study followed close to 90,000 Canadian women for a period of 25 years and found that regular mammograms could actually have negative effects on overall health and survival rates.

As reported by OPB, there was virtually no difference in survival rates between those women who had regular mammograms and those who didn’t. Those who didn’t opt for the mammograms simply used regular physical exams and their own self-exams to identify potential breast abnormalities.

Over the 25-year study, 3,250 women in the mammogram group and 3,133 women in the non-mammogram group developed breast cancer. In the mammogram group, 500 ultimately died from the disease and 505 died in the control group.

“In our study, and in some other screening studies, those whose cancers were detected by mammography seemed to have more rapidly progressive disease,” the researchers said. “In addition, the mere fact that a cancer is detected by screening does not guarantee a benefit from detecting that cancer.”

Read: UCLA Study Shows Radiation Treatments Make Breast Cancer Worse

Previous studies have found that breast tumors identified in mammograms are often over-diagnosed, or diagnosed as being serious when they were actually cases where the tumor would not have otherwise produced symptoms or death in the patient’s lifetime.

Wait—does this mean mammograms are picking out tumors that don’t benefit from treatment and pegging them as potentially life-threatening? Yes, it would seem so.

“These cancers — comprising half of those found by mammography alone — could not have affected the woman’s lifetime, instead there were adverse consequences that she had to endure, living with the knowledge that she had had breast cancer, though in fact that detection did not benefit her at all,” said Anthony B. Miller to Medical News Today.

Mammograms are a tool of the conventional medical industry—they are far from health care, but instead serve the large money-makers with another source of income. Paired with recommendations that all women above a certain age should use this screening process on an annual or bi-annual basis, the industry is making out hand-over-fist on devices that are proven worthless.