Study of 1.8 Million: Breast Screening Increases 'Lethal' Breast Cancer Incidence

Study of 1.8 Million: Breast Screening Increases 'Lethal' Breast Cancer Incidence

A powerful new study on the failure of mammograms to protect women against breast cancer, curiously absent from mainstream news health reporting, was published this month in The European Journal of Public Health, and is forcing the scientific and medical community, policy makers and the public at large to ask the question: can the now worldwide practice of mass breast screenings in healthy (asymptomatic) populations be justified when they increase the incidence of localized stage 'cancers' without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers?

Titled, "Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway," the study found that based on a population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women, diagnosed with breast cancer 1987-2010,

"The annual incidence of localized breast cancer among women aged 50–69 years rose from 63.9 per 100 000 before the introduction of screening to 141.2 afterwards, corresponding to a ratio of 2.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.10; 2.32). The incidence of more advanced cancers increased from 86.9 to 117.3 per 100 000 afterwards, corresponding to a 1.35 (1.29; 1.42)-fold increase. Advanced cancers also increased among younger women not eligible for screening, whereas their incidence of localized cancers remained nearly constant." [emphasis added]

In other words, enrollment in Norway's breast screening program increased the chance of being diagnosed with an early-stage breast 'cancer' diagnoses by 221%, and more disturbingly, increased the chance of being diagnosed with an advanced (lethal) breast cancer by 35% -- exactly opposite what would be expected if the mammograms were actually catching malignant tumors early, which would imply the incidence of the more lethal, late stage cancers would be lower and not higher. (see: see scientist's description of how breast cancer overdiagnosis occurs on

The study concluded with the following summarization:

"Conclusion: Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50–69 years old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group."

While not discussed in depth within the article, their results indicate that breast screening causes profound numbers of overdiagnosis, and because of the 'overtreatment' (and mistreatment) that results from this, produces excess morbidity and mortality in screened women as a result. Indeed, one of the most dramatic revelations of our time occurred last year when a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that so-called 'early stage cancers' such as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) are not cancer at all, but benign or indolent growths. This implies that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with 'breast cancer' over the past 30 years who would have been better off left undiagnosed and untreated.

Does Breast Screening Really 'Save Lives'? If So, Prove It

The oft-touted belief that 'breast screening saves lives,' or that the best form of 'prevention is through early detection,' has increasingly been challenged by the very peer-reviewed and published research – the "scientific evidence" -- that forms the only real justification for foisting them upon women.  These viral memes, now driving millions of women to subject themselves to breast cancer causing diagnostic radiation (see: dangers of x-ray mammography on our database), are no longer founded in anything more than the marketing copy of the industries that stand to profit greatly from the process of screening and treating breast 'cancers,' regardless of whether they are benign and indolent (like DCIS), or actually a cause for concern. (see: The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month)

Only last month, we reported on the latest British Medical Journal study,[i] involving 90,000 Canadian women, which compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening.  The clear conclusion of the 25-year follow up study was that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates, i.e. taken as a whole, they don't save lives.

This new study, therefore, is actually only confirming what a growing body of virtually unassailable evidence is telling us, and which our contributing writer Rolf Hefti, author of The Mammogram Myth (non-affiliate link), summarizes as follows:

"The findings of this study corroborate copious previous research data I had documented in The Mammogram Myth that screening with mammography detects mostly indolent, low-grade "cancers" and misses much of the progressive fatal cancers, contradicting a main claim of benefit heavily disseminated by the medical-mammogram industry.

In addition, the study's results suggest, again, that screening with mammography will lead to a lot of unnecessary invasive cancer treatments in women with innocuous, early-stage breast "cancer" due to overdiagnosis, while many women with aggressive advanced cancers, who presumably have the most need for these treatments, don't get them."

Like so many other studies that have been released on the topic of mammography's failure to produce a net benefit in screened populations, there are far deeper implications to women's physical and psychospiritual health that should be addressed. These include the following, excerpted from our article: Fail: Another Mammography Study Finds They Don't Save Lives:  

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Popular Threads

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2016, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.