Health Warning: Screenings May Be Dangerous

[Guest guest]

Great Stuff Misty

 

Shawn

-

" Misty L. Trepke " <mistytrepke

 

Saturday, July 12, 2003 4:39 PM

[s-A] [ElectroHerbalism] Health Warning: Screenings May Be

Dangerous

 

 

> Comments?

> Misty L. Trepke

> http://www..com

>

> Health warning: screening can seriously damage patients

>

> See my earlier article

> <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/06/10/the_depths_of_decei

> t_mammography.htm>The

> Depths of Deceit Mammography for some salient background.

> Particularly the effects of X-Rays.

>

> <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/>Chris

> <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/>Gupta

> ---

> ---

> -------------

> A story about cancer screening - they seem to finally recognize

> that something's not right about their approach. The numbers tell.

>

> <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/index.htm>Josef

>

> Health warning: screening can seriously damage patients Breast

> cancer checks at centre of fresh controversy as concerns grow that

> hi-tech clinics may harm those seeking to pre-empt illness By Jeremy

> Laurance, Health Editor 11 July 2003

>

> Hi-tech screening services, which promise to detect early signs of

> heart disease, cancer and other conditions while they can still be

> cured, are being introduced in Britain despite warnings from doctors

> that they may do more harm than good.

>

> A new allegation that breast screening, one of the longest

> established procedures, is being over-promoted to women who are not

> being alerted to the harm that can result is published today in the

> British Medical Journal.

>

> Regular mammography to check for breast cancer is an established

> technology, backed by scientific expertise, which is popular with

> patients.

>

> But debate continues to rage over whether it saves lives or prompts

> unnecessary treatment. Hazel Thornton, a former breast cancer

> patient and visiting fellow at the University of Leicester, and

> Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College,

> London, and a long-time critic of screening, have teamed up with a

> colleague to demand information for women that sets out the risks

> and benefits.

>

> They cite evidence showing 1,200 women would have to be screened for

> 14 years to save one life from breast cancer while during that time

> scores would suffer anxiety, surgery and mastectomies for suspicious

> lumps that turned out to be benign.

>

> The war over the risks and benefits of screening is likely to grow.

> Clinics offering whole body scans, diagnostic tests and checks for

> specific conditions such as skin cancer are springing up in London

> and in other cities promising to provide clients with the " ultimate

> health check " .

>

> At least four clinics have opened in the capital in the past three

> months offering tests lasting from 15 minutes to two hours and

> costing up to £1,000. Companies say the tests can reveal small

> tumours, aortic aneurysms (defects in the wall of the main blood

> vessel), bone erosion, artery deposits and osteoporosis (bone

> thinning).

>

> Whole body screening is big business in America. Smart walk-in

> facilities such as the Ameriscan Body Imaging Centre are based in

> shopping malls and on high streets and are heavily advertised. They

> promise an ultra-fast image of vital internal organs for a price of

> about £650.

>

> The selling point of the scans is summarised in one company's

> slogan: " You don't know what's inside until you look. "

> Traditionally, doctors have performed health checks using the

> thermometer, the stethoscope and their skill as diagnosticians. Now

> the promise is that new technology will replace the application of a

> sensitive touch and a listening ear.

>

> But British experts are sceptical. Richard Smith, editor of the

> British Medical Journal, said a whole body scan had become a

> fashionable gift in the US for people reaching milestone birthdays

> of 50, 60 or even 40. " You might be giving your loved one the

> supreme gift of extra years of life. Unfortunately, you may be more

> likely to give him or her a lorry load of anxiety and a series of

> invasive, painful and unnecessary investigations, " he wrote.

>

> The problem is that most scans throw up " abnormalities " but to

> distinguish those that are benign from those that indicate serious

> disease is often difficult. Dr Harvey Eisenberg, who runs a scanning

> service in Newport, California, said he referred 80 per cent of the

> clients he screened for further hospital checks.

>

> " Emerging pathologies are almost always present. In 25,000 patients

> I have seen maybe 10 that were completely normal, " he said.

>

> Screening may wrongly indicate the presence of disease in some

> patients

> -

> the " false positive " findings - causing them to have painful and

> unnecessary investigations. An American patient who had a nodule

> detected on his lung in screening described how he had a lung biopsy

> to check for cancer, which revealed that the nodule was a healed

> scar that was non-threatening. The investigation led to him spending

> four days in hospital, enduring a painful procedure followed by

> several weeks' recuperation and left him with a bill of $47,000

> (£30,000).

>

> Stephen Swenson, professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic,

> Rochester, Minnesota, said in the BMJ that screening for lung cancer

> at his clinic as part of a study had detected 56 cases of the

> disease over four years. " One could ask why screening should not be

> advocated. Several uncertainties, however, make it premature to

> advocate screening on a large scale, " he said.

>

> Although they found more early-stage lung cancers, what was unclear

> was whether this would delay progression of the disease, even with

> treatment, or whether the mortality associated with treating lesions

> which might turn out to be benign outweighed the gain from

> screening. Professor Swenson writes:

>

> " Some of the best doctors in the world have sincere differences of

> opinion about such screening .... If patients simply want to get

> scanned ... doctors should tell patients in explicit terms that such

> screening has no proved benefit and that serious risks could

> outweigh benefits (if there are any). Patients should understand

> that the stakes are high. "

>

> In their paper on breast screening in today's BMJ, Ms Thornton and

> Professor Baum say misconceptions on screening abound. Many people

> wrongly believe screening reduces the incidence of breast cancer,

> that all types of breast cancer progress and that early detection is

> always a benefit.

>

> In fact, they say, screening contributes to a rise in the incidence

> of breast cancer and one in five cancers detected is ductal

> carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a type of breast cancer that may not

> progress. In 40 per cent of cases, DCIS results in a mastectomy,

> which may be unnecessary for the woman and expensive for the NHS.

>

> They claim there has been " negligible improvement " in NHS screening

> leaflets because of the tension that exists with the screening

> service's need to boost uptake.

>

> They conclude: " It is unacceptable that women taking tests continue

> to suffer damage and regret because they found out the harms of

> screening from experience. Unless women are able to make true

> informed choices, funding for the service will continue to be

> questioned. "

>

> A spokeswoman for the NHS Breast Screening Service said leaflets

> given to women were revised in 2001 to provide balanced information

> on benefits and limitations. " All women receive a copy of the

> leaflet with their invitation to screening which sets out what

> screening can and cannot do, " she said.

>

> Even the longest established form of screening in the UK - for

> cervical cancer - is not immune to criticism. In a separate survey

> in the BMJ, Angela Raffle, consultant in public health medicine in

> Avon, and colleagues, calculated that 1,000 women would have to be

> screened for 35 years to prevent one death. They point out that more

> than 80 per cent of abnormal findings at cervical screening do not

> progress to invasive cancer.

>

> " The same may well apply in other organs and the prophylactic

> [preventive] removal of colons, ovaries, breasts and gullets may be

> killing people without benefit, " they say.

>

> The rationale for screening - that we can nip diseases in the bud -

> is now being adopted by companies to make fat profits. But

> abnormalities are more common and difficult to interpret than people

> think. Early detection can improve survival - but it may also mean

> merely that patients spend more of their life with the knowledge

> that they have a fatal disease. Sometimes it is better not to know.

>

> Screening tests

>

> Cervix

>

> Examining a scraping of cells from the cervix under a microscope can

> reveal early changes, which may progress to cancer.

>

> Breast

>

> Mammography (an X-ray of the breast) can detect lumps in the breast

> that may be cancerous while they are too small to be felt.

>

> Heart

>

> Blood tests measure cholesterol levels and ECG can measure the heart

> rhythm. The ultimate test is angiography, in which X-rays of the

> coronary arteries are taken after being injected with a radio-opaque

> dye.

>

> Bowel

>

> Testing faeces for the presence of occult (hidden) blood can detect

> signs of cancer. An internal examination using a flexible telescope

> can check for polyps, small growths from the intestinal wall, which

> may develop into cancer.

>

> Ovary

>

> An ultrasound probe inserted in the vagina or pressed over the

> abdomen, combined with blood tests, may provide early warning of

> cancer. Trials are being run to establish its reliability.

>

> Prostate

>

> Blood tests, with rectal examination, may indicate cancer.

>

> Lung

>

> A scan can detect nodules that may be early tumours.

>

> Bone

>

> A bone density scan can provide early warning of the bone-thinning

> disease osteoporosis, caused by loss of calcium.

>

> The Independent

> 11 July 2003 09:36

>

> http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/07/12/health_warning_scree

> ning_can_seriously_damage_patients.htm

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting article on mammography. Last time I had that done - several

years ago - I actually ended up with torn ligaments under my arm - never

again will I have a mammography!

Carol

 

 

 

Misty L. Trepke [mistytrepke]

 

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

Health warning: screening can seriously damage patients