[4 Min] Stop Getting Mammograms to Prevent Breast Cancer
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 11. 2022
- Common practice is that women often seek out mammograms every October during Breast Cancer awareness month, but how effective are they exactly? The answer is only 30% effective! Young women have dense breasts by definition which don't show up on a 2D mammogram. That leaves a very large room for error for catching breast cancers. Mammogram technology is already 120 years old has become an antiquated test and screening modality. Join Dr. Levandovsky MD to understand what you should do instead.
Watch the full masterclass: Don't Become a 1 in 2 Cancer Statistic: How to Prevent Cancer: www.pmccdenver.com/prevent
Find Out Your CRS (Cancer Risk Score): www.pmccdenver.com/crs - Jak na to + styl
I will never have a Mammogram. I'm in my 50's and my doctors are livid with me, but it's my body and they only care about money. I have found only 2 doctors in my life who genuinely listened and cared and they are no longer around. Sad state of affairs in the medical industry.
I agree. Thanks for the reminder.
At nearly 68 I have never had one, during mammograms your breasts are exposed to radiation which is carcinogenic and they also receive trauma, not a good mix.
I have found that these days drs are less sympathetic towards pts! It’s all about money. I wil drive my own healthcare!!
I am 54, same situation and my Mom died of breast cancer at 74 (she was super stressed all the time, had a horrible childhood, and didn't know how to look after nutritional needs, lots of reasons). A good book to read is 'The Conspiracy of Hope' - history of mammography. Sickening the $$ behind screening...
Same here @KristineMarie321 !! I’m 54 and I get hounded every time I go to my Dr…. Something in my mind tells me not to do it…. I just don’t feel right about it…
It’s also the same thing with The Shingles vaccine…. My mother got The Shingles vaccine and developed the worst case of shingles our Dr has ever seen 4 weeks later… I just don’t trust the medical field anymore… especially after 2019-20 🤷🏻♀️
Love and Blessings to all my Gen X sisters here in the comments 💕❤️🙏🏼
Funny how there is no such thing as a Testiculargram where the scrotum is put in a vice for 10-15 excruciating seconds per testicle for 2 different views
I wonder why that is?
I am 67 and have never had a mammogram. In addition to the radiation, I always felt that smashing breast down flat cannot be good for them. I am so glad this information being exposed.
I refuse too!
@@l.b.603I didn't get it the past 20 years. The last time I did, came home with bruises that stayed for many days. Same with the pussy test, bleeded for days after the procedure
a dangerous and useless test. head of the NHS division who started their program years ago resigned commenting that just because one can do something well does not mean it is worth doing.
The smashing of that cold machine, as well, how could I forget that. Lol
If I had small breasts, it wouldn't hurt as bad, but they are just too rough!!
That smashing down the breasts also never felt right for me. Its really shocking to see
I had a mammogram that "showed something " I didn't get another one for 7 years. That one also "showed something " Biopsy confirmed a tumor and they quickly whisked me to surgery. A 1mm tumor was removed. 2 lymph nodes were removed. They felt I had cancer and needed chemo and radiation. I refused chemo and was super reluctant on the radiation but finally caved to all of the pressure. I have not returned for a mammogram since then and do not plan on EVER having another one. I'm 64 and it's been 6 years since that diagnosis. I don't think that 1mm "tumor" would have ever caused me problems. It's ALL about making money. There is HUGE money in cancer treatments.
Maybe it was different 6 years ago, but any area of breast cancer under 5mm and no lymph nodes does not require chemo. Only radiation if lumpectomy, and that is to prevent reoccurrence.
I had a freind who was a radiologist who was constantly being criticized by her superiors for taking too long to evaluate mammograms. She was one of more than twently radiologists but the only one who would take time to carefully study the mammograms. The other radioligist cranked through far more than four per hour. My friend said that on average over the course of a week, she could only read four per hour if she wanted to do a good job and not miss any cancers.
Many blessings for your friend.
Cancer screening and treatment is an industry, in addition to the fact that there is no “threshold dose” for ionizing radiation, meaning no safe dose. Every exposure to ionizing radiation in a population causes some number of cancers. Annual mammograms find some of the cancers because they caused them. And does smashing your breasts flat feel healthy to you when it is happening?
What about mammograms causing cancer cells to increase.
It's true 😁
When I was in chiropractic school, I asked that same question, how can we radiated breast tissue yearly for maybe decades and not cause the disease we are trying to prevent, or more accurately find early? Never got a good answer.
It's an industry. Follow the money 😁
I am 65 and have never had a mammogram. I finally found a doctor I just love who is with me on this.
There’s a show called “Know the Cause” with a guy named Doug Kaufmann, whose entire show (on You Tube) is about fungus. He was a Vietnam paramedic and came back with an unidentifiable rash. He talks about various health topics as well, and does extensive research to find interesting health issues we should know about. He found one article about what mammograms do to breast tissue, from the 1960’s or 70’s that said the compression actually changes the DNA in women’s breasts!!!
I've never had a doctor who has not been okay with me refusing a mammogram. They've always been pretty cool with it, because they know it's got its downside and self examination is how most cancers are found.
I have been so brow beaten by gyns, and even a naturopath I know. OMG. I have another condition that is hard to treat, and this gyn has worked with me and now I am most of the time completely symptom free. I so love that he is collaborative. And, historically, I have found that women gyns who I saw mostly for years, brow beat me more than male gyns. What’s with that???? Hopefully that is changing.
@@LisaMurphy False. Where do get this stuff? In women over 50, 56% of cases of breast cancer are detected by mammogram vs. 37% by self-detection. Under 50, it's 37% by mammogram, and 40% by self-detection. But these figures have to be adjusted for the fact that women under 50 are far less likely to be getting regular mammograms, so of course, they are going to be finding more by self-detection. I really want to know-- where do you get things like "self-examination is how most cancers are found"?
@@amierichan1428 I've read it and heard it numerous times throughout my life. Where do you get your info from? The corrupt pharmaceutical companies? The ones who prescribe statins and anti-depressants and diet drugs & many hundreds of other drugs that help make people the sad wrecks that they are. Look around you next time you're out. The average american age 50 is taking 5 different prescription meds. Why is that? The human race evolved through hundreds of thousand of years without drugs and without mammograms. It's an obvious racket but you choose to be a fan. Okay, your body your choice and I'm definitely all for that.
Saved my life! Not all breast cancer can be felt.
Mine too!!
How do you know it didn't cause the cancer?
@@susangarland6869 Because there is not one scientific study that the amount of radiation in a mammogram is enough to give you any kind of cancer, anywhere in your body, and there are plenty to prove they don't. If the radiation in mammograms caused cancer in any real way, don't you think that would have shown up by now? They became identified as a recommended regular procedure by the ACS in 1976. That's 48 years ago. They weren't nearly as refined as they are now, and there has been no increase in the rates per age range since then (the incidence begins with about 1 in 200 in your 30's, to 1 in 8 past 85). Actually, what has increased is the number of metastatic breast cancers in women under 40. Who are not getting mammograms.
Here's how you have to be careful with information about breast cancer. There was a big news story about how women who breast fed their babies had a 50% reduction in breast cancer. Well, yeah, but the big piece they left out was that that was in premenopausal breast cancer. Which is pre-age 50, when you're far less likely to get it, anyway, your odds at 50 are about 2%. So if the odds are 2%, and not breast feeding increases that to 3%, that's not that big a difference, is it.
Still not the norm.
Same!!!
My wife had hers they found a tumor early...operated and shes alive today because of it..the mammogram aint nothing copaired to chemo...chemo came closer to killing her than cancer did...
I head by a doctor that mammogram has the equivalent to the radiation of 1000 x rays! Then if they find something they order a sonogram which is much safer. Why not just stick with a sonogram?😮
The sonogram is better.
And then MRI if there is something suspicious. Skip the mammogram.
Ultrasound is not better than a mammogram. I've been scanning breast for over two decades. Mammograms detect much more than a sonogram will. Ultrasound can find cancers over 1cm in size. Mammogram can detect the same cancer when it's smaller, when it's still a 1mm tiny calcification in the breast tissue.
@@CeliaJNBaptiste-vo1zd Ultrasounds are not as good a diagnostic tool.
Mammograms today use a completely different form of imaging compared to 30 years ago and have far less radiation.
I’m one of those who had a mammogram and they found a cancer. I had a double mastectomy and 2 years later, the implants they put in me were recalled, so I had to have a deip flap to have any breasts. Let me tell u, I regret all of it. My cancer was so minimal, I most likely wouldn’t even spread. I regret it all, because I feel I was over diagnosed.
Almost any cancer can spread and breast cancer is most notorious for this. - RN
Why do you think you were over-diagnosed?
I totally agree with you and this is the gripe and issue I have with mammograms. Lots of women around my age in their early 40s seem to be getting over diagnosed- A.k.a. catching the cancerous cells before they turn into the regular stages.
Maybe my take is unpopular opinion, but I would rather not put myself through the mental and physical trauma and torture of dealing with something I don’t necessarily have to.
I’ve been doing thermography since my early 30s and unless something were to show up
specifically there, I am foregoing mammograms in the meantime.
@@EadsB7002 How many is "lots of women around my age"? And thermography is very poor at catching cancer, which is why insurance companies won't pay for it as a breast cancer screening tool.
@@amierichan1428 I would disagree, I had some breast pain in my late 50's, my homeopath suggested having thermography, this showed a slight hot spot, long b gore anything would have shown on a mammogram.I followed in clinics advice, started taking vitamins d and bought a. nutribullet, the next scan 6 months later was normal.I am now 68 and have never exposed my breast tissue to the radiation of a mammogram.
I have never had a mammogram and never will. My body, my decision.
@conniemiller5125. I had a mammogram that found my breast cancer. Breast cancer is not something you want. I don't have genetic tendency for it either. I wish there were a more humane way to discover it.
Yes it is. And if you get breast cancer you won’t know until it is past the point it is treatable. Good luck with that. My breast cancer was deep and could not be felt. The mammogram picked it up and fortunately I was able to have surgery and radiation. Seems kind of foolish to decide not to have screening. And any doctor that tries to convince women they do not need screening for cancer should have their license pulled. It is irresponsible.
@@kated2847 Have them open their books first; financially FORENSICALLY AUDIT them and all involved.
@@kated2847 your mammograms could of caused it, my mum who died at 84 from a problem with heart valves never had one, and at 68 I haven't either.
Two things I’d never do 1.mammograms 2. Vaccines
I got one at 35, 40, and 45, but am not having any more. My doctor was okay with me skipping last year, but we’ll see going forward. This is a huge business. What no one is mentioning here are the high number of false positives. Women get treatment for a disease they don’t have all the time. The treatment is poison and shortens lives. People need to make their own decisions. I’ve realized lately I am the one in control of my medical care.
You don't get chemotherapy for false positives. A false positive means that further testing is done to determine if you actually have breast cancer. And the percentage on 3-D mammograms is quite low.
I always have my mammograms, thank goodness. I was diagnosed with breast cancer thanks to this and a very vigilent radiotherapist who detected a small tumour. An invasive type which was caught early. At the time I was back home on holiday from my life in a country where mammograms weren’t available. Had I not taken the time to do this I would have returned for the next few years oblivious to my health state.
My treatment finished eight years ago. I understand why people are reticent but they are almost all exclusively those who have not had cancer. Those that were diagnosed in time thanks to this, have now more than 80% chance of survival.
Well done you, I think this video is ill advice and I will delete it from my viewing
Please realize that there is no “threshold dose” for ionizing radiation, meaning there is no safe amount. The radiation from the exam will cause some number of cancers. So, did it just find it, or did it cause it then find it? You can look up everything I wrote. Facts.
Agreed, I’m alive because of a mammogram too.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. This technology saved my life. And my cancer was caught early, I was lucky to have a relatively easy cancer treatment. These videos tell women not to get mammograms is so infuriating. And I did a lot right. Great diet, Exercise. No drinking.
I believe that those who no longer get mammograms have had horrendously painful ones.
We need to force insurance companies to stop demanding them. My poor wife has to go through three different uncomfortable tests every time they want to screen her, and it's only because our insurance company insists on the first mammogram. The ultrasound is always the last test and we have to pay a deductible for it.
Yep…revenue!
They can’t make her do it. Just say no.
I worked with a lady who was in her late fifty's she went for her mannogram they found several small dots in one of her breasts they were malignant she was Lucky they found them. I'm 75 yrs old and always have my mammogram and will carry on doing its never harmed me or my breasts they are still very firm😊
Exactly-- because it doesn't harm you or your breasts:-).
There is an alternative to mammograms . The Thermogram has been available for over 35 years. There is no money to be made with this form of detection. It is infrared thermography. A thermal camera captures and creates an images of the breast . A mammogram is an x - ray of the breast. Just know that radiation is accumulative over the years. Why expose yourself to yearly radiation . You have to add that to all the other methods that are used that put out radiation. No you will not feel anything , but damage is being done. Both tests screen for cancer but thermography can detect potential cancer far in advance . It does this by detecting variation in temperature in the breast tissue. The Thermogram is a heat map with different temperatures represented by different colors. It shows increase in blood supply . An increase in blood supply is telling us that there is a potential problem that a mammogram will not show. You can do both , alternating every couple of years. There is no squeezing of the breast with thermography. My mom lived to the age of 94 and never had a mammogram . We are living in a toxic environment that is creating most of our problems. Why would you want to expose the body to continual radiation. Do your homework. Informed consent. Don’t leave your health decisions to the medical establishment. Do no harm is not the mantra now days. This is a different medical environment .
@@heleneikerenkotter2950yeah, uh, one little problem with thermography -- there's no evidence that it's really effective, and it has a very high rate of false positives.
@@heleneikerenkotter2950 Thermography doesn't work well, that's why it's not normally used. It doesn't find a lot of cancers, and they have a very high false-positive rate, so they induce unnecessary treatment.
Shirley here, I never had one one I was suppose to get one went I went through menopause by my Dr's orders. I am 73 and guess I was a lucky one. Me friend hot hers every year died 5 years later.
I've never had a mammogram & I'm 70 and never had breast cancer. I refused the mammograms when I was first offered, 30 years ago - I told the doctor I thought they were a bad idea and he was like, okay, I can understand your point of view. And it was no big deal. I do check my breasts a couple times a week. This is still the best way to find cancer, it seems to me. And the best way to avoid harmful radiation. To avoid getting it in the first place, eat well, stay slim and exercise.
When you have genetic defects that can lead to breast cancer, you can eat all health food that you want, stay slim etc... it is an unlucky draw.
@@nessieness5433 You can minimize your chances of cancer with a great diet and exercise. Skin cancer runs in my family - both sides - and I was the one who ate organic whole foods and did not get skin cancer. So far anyway.
That feels good to think we have any control over this. We do not. My mother had no family history, did not eat sugar or meat, never drank or smoke, would walk 3 miles to the Y, swim 1 mile of laps, and walk the 3 miles home. And died at 67 from a very aggressive breast cancer. The mammogram machines from 30 years ago are nothing like the ones used now. Would you take the cancer treatment offered 30 years ago? Or the cataract surgery available 30 years ago? I hope not.
@@amierichan1428 We have an enormous amount of control over our health, including whether or not we get cancer. There are so many things that may have caused your mom to get breast cancer. You revealed one probable cause: you said she didn't eat meat. We are omnivores and if she wasn't touching meat she was almost definitely deficient in several nutrients. It's unhealthy to not eat any meat at all and Vegans do not have great health. Also, was she drinking city water, ever? Was she taking any meds at all? Was her workplace toxin free? Did she use any sort of creams or cosmetics? Did she drink out of plastic bottles frquently? Did she ever use sunscreen? And most importantly: was she under a lot of stress? She did not get cancer by chance. Even kids who are born with it, the cause can be traced back to what mom was doing during pregnancy.
@@nessieness5433 I don't buy that. I am genetically predisposed to skin cancer and everyone in my family has gotten it. I took control of the situation by staying out of the sun, never putting chemicals on my skin and eating healthy whole foods. Haven't gotten skin cancer even once and I'm 70 now.
I’m fearful of being pulled into deep involvement with the medical pharmaceutical insurance industrial machinery, and I think that statistically, the odds of that happening are greater due to over-diagnosis and over-treatment than actually having my life saved by catching an aggressive cancer.
I’ve had a few mammograms and an ultrasound, they both are painful. I’ve decided that I prefer to pursue health with diet and lifestyle rather than seeking sickness with asymptomatic screenings. But everyone feels differently; if getting screenings makes one feel more in control or something, go for it, but those of us who choose not to participate don’t need to be bullied into it
I agree it is such a personal decision. Definitely not a one size fits all. Some may be most comfortable with doing regular mammograms and that’s OK. Some may not. Their choice, their life.
And I tend to think just like you do. I would rather be proactive with my health than to just blindly follow all blanket medical recommendations.
How come we’re still in the Middle Ages with medicine?
Because there is no money to be made in a cure. Only Big Pharma profits from the research money that rolls into the exorbitant cost of pharmaceuticals that really don't work to cure, just treat indefinitely.
Money!
Money & greed
Baffling. I can't believe in this day and age the standard care for cancer (not all but most) is chemo and radiation. Decades of this shlt. It's all poison being put in your body.
Greed
Mamogram caught my breast cancer at age 71
I get a 3-D digital mammogram combined with bilateral ultrasound every year. I will never miss these screenings. My aunt and mother both were diagnosed w early cancer where it was highly treatable thanks to these screenings
Same! I rather trust the decisions of my GP who thankfully referred me for 2 mammograms in the past 2 years. Same with my family, my great grandmother died of breast cancer and my grandmother had it too but survived it so I am possibly at risk due to family history. I rather trust science and actual clinicians than fake scaremongering news like this 😮.
The 3D mammogram found the tumor I could not feel ( which was malignant). Thank you for the info but each needs to decide.
I had a baseline mammogram when I turned 40. That was my first and last mammogram. There's no way something that barbaric and primitive is ever going to do anything but cause damage.
How you explain something so advanced, hi-tech and scientific as "barbaric" is mystifying.
It is barbaric. If there is a cancer or cyst that pressure can do damage. . I will never do another mammogram. When I had one done it was so painful that the breasts were sore for three days. That is torture. I stopped having them over 8 years ago when my very dear friend introduced me to thermograms. I pay for them out of pocket even though I am eligible thru military to have Mammograms free .
@@heleneikerenkotter2950 The pressure from a mammogram does not "do damage" to cancer. Do you honestly believe that doctors would prescribe a diagnostic tool that made cancer worse?!
I'm sorry to hear that you had a lot of residual pain. I would talk to the imaging centre.
There are big problems with thermography, that's why insurance companies won't pay for them. See my post above with the list of the issues.
@@amierichan7231 get real my dear. I have been in the medical field my entire life. Do you think breast pain or potential cancer is a concern. Breast tissue is very delicate. Most women have at least one every year, maybe more. That will add up to 30 plus in your life time. Radiation is accumulative. I know women who have developed breast cancer from radiation. You can have them done, your decision, but I feel that women need to know that there is an alternative way of detecting breast cancer. No argument here. Informed consent. Treating breast cancer is a lucrative business to Big Pharma and Oncologist. Just know that. It is probably the most expensive cancer to treat. I am finished with this discussion.
Yup! I recommend thermography instead. Mammogram and ultrasound only if there are red flags on the thermogram. Not interested in putting my body and mental state through all of that stress if I don’t have to.
I hate mammograms, but wouldn’t have found the cancer I had that was close to my rib cage. Would not have found it til it was big!
30% effective is a lot more than I thought. I've just read two comments to another video by women whose lives were saved thanks to early cancer detection via a mammogram. Some cancers don't form a lump and cannot be detected with a manual exam, so it's crucially important to have another means of detection.
This was me a year and a half ago when i was 65, I had a mamm and they found a small tumor, I had early stage 1 estrogen dominant metastatic breast cancer. If I did not get that mamm I would not have known until it was a lot more advanced. Could have spread to other parts of my body. I had no lumps or symptoms. I read that 1 in 8 women now get breast cancer. Don't know whether that is true or not but that is a very high number
Mine was right under the nipple and could never have been detected by feeling it. I’m glad it was removed before it had a chance to spread. Cancer cells are highly vascularized.
They are actually 87.5% effective at finding cancer:-). Mammograms are a great invention that save lives and quality of life.
If a breast cancer doesn’t form a lump how is it cancer? A tumour by definition is a lump. 🙄
I have had breast cancer in both breasts, 18 years apart. Both discovered via a yearly mammogram. I dread to think what may have happened if I had relied on self examination.
I had a mammogram 2 years ago at age 69. A small lump was discovered and removed with a lumpectomy. Had I not had the mammogram it would not have Ernestine detected.
It may have not caused any problems had you left it alone.
@@sassysandie2865 I was not willing to take that chance. My personal choice. Maybe not for anyone else.
The new mammogram 3d tomosynthesis machines are now very accurate
How do you get this please just found small hard lump
Most all hospitals have 3D imaging now. If not, ask to be scheduled nearby to a facility having this 3D imaging machine. Good luck! Best wishes!!
Does it still crush the breast, is it still a form of radiation?
Yes, it does it still.
@sylwias2282 thank you
I thought I was doing the right thing by getting yearly mammograms. I found my lump after my mammograms missed it. I was told by an oncologist this has been missed for years. Diagnosed when I was 43.
Same here…yearly mammograms since 28 and i found lumps myself my mammogram didn’t detected , i diagnosed last year 46😢
@@jasminetran7074
Sorry to hear that. Hope you are well now. This is why I hate hearing, “Get your mammograms!” Yeah, well, we did and it failed us. 😒 Good luck to you, I wish you the best!
@@amya9597 thank you and best luck to you too❤️❤️
Sorry for saying this but you are so ignorant. You need an ultrasound not a mammogram.
Sorry to hear about missed breast lumps and then to develop breast cancer…😢 May you’ll heal nicely and start 2024 refreshed! Look after yourselves! Here in NZ you have to manage your own health too!!
I didn't get my first mammogram until I was 60 and then at 65. My second one I was diagnosed with early stage 1 estrogen dominant breast cancer. A .05 tumor, very small. There were no lumps or symptoms but I was glad I got the mamm because it could have gotten a whole lot worse if I didn't. I was shocked to hear that 1 in 8 women now get breast cancer. Not a good statistic. I have heard there is a vaccine coming out for estrogen dominant breast cancer. I hope it is a good thing
Check out Dr David Brownstein because he says that the majority of the women get breast cancer is due to lack of iodine.
Like I’d trust any of their newer vaccines??
I was one of those people who religiously went for my screenings. I also have breast implants. On two occasions, the test deflated two implants. I’m not going for another one.
Incredibly sloppy presentation. There was one sentence about three-dimensional mammography, which is the current standard of care. These presentations should be done by radiologists who are breast imaging specialists!
3D is even more radiation. Mamms are NOT good nor useful for women with dense breasts-- do ultrasound instead.
And what if the doctor insists? They insist on zapping us yearly at the dentist just to get our teeth cleaned too. If you resist enough, they dismiss you as a patient. It's not really informed consent if I my refusal to consent results in dismissal and therefore means I can't receive treatments for things. It's absurd.
A mammogram is what caught my breast cancer at age 50. Even the subsequent biopsy returned benign, but the radiologist recommended I see a surgeon. I had the cancerous tumor removed a couple months later. My cousin was 40 when she had her first mammogram, and her breast cancer had already spread to three lymph nodes by that time. Another friend was in her 40’s when she was diagnosed by a mammogram. Hers too had already spread to her lymph nodes and then her other organs. She died a month ago leaving three young children behind. Finally, my friend in her 30’s had odd symptoms and was told a mammogram wasn’t advised because she was too young to have breast cancer. After a diagnosis of stage 4 breast cancer, she died leaving behind five boys. Get your mammograms and stop watching this nonsense.
It makes sense in high risk patients. Your experience has clearly been troubling, but does not reflect mine.
@@stacysharlet3486 If you have breasts, you are at high risk for breast cancer, period. My mother had an aggressive breast cancer which killed her, and no family history. My sister had a non-aggressive form of breast cancer WHICH WAS CAUGHT BY A MAMMOGRAM. Because of our mother, she was tested for the genetic mutations. The general procedure is that if you have a family history and have had breast cancer, but there are none of the 3 big mutations, then they search for the hundreds of small mutations that can influence getting breast cancer. My sister had none. I was tested. I have none. After my last mammogram, I was told I had a very low risk for developing it. I'm not sure how they came up with that, my doctor doesn't know, and next time I go, I will ask. And, oh yes, there will be a next time, and time after that, and a time after that, every single year until I die, hopefully of something else.
You're right, Dawnkeckley7502's experience does not reflect your own. Yours could be even worse. I certainly hope not, but your decision to not get mammograms has nothing to do with the science and reality. I really, really, really hope you don't pay for that down the road.
Inflammatory breast cancer will not show in mammogram or ultra sound because there is no tumor with this type.
@dawnkecley - that’s YOUR story. You’re only one of billions of women on the planet. 🙄
Do thermography if you think having a label for something your body is doing matters. It’s far safer scans the entire chest wall and armpits with no pain, radiation or false negatives or positives …plus it picks up indicators years ahead of mamgrams . Those are awful for us but lucrative for them
I’ve done thermography almost every year since my early 30s. I’m in my early 40s now and I have never had a mammogram. And do not plan to do so unless something were to show up specifically on my thermogram. I highly recommend thermography! It’s very informative and much much safer.
@@EadsB7002they are just as inaccurate as mammograms.
So the same level of detection then? If one is safer then I'd opt for the safer one 😊xx @@sassysandie2865
I payed for my last ultrasound and I plan on getting those instead of mammograms as long as no one gives me a reason why the latter is better for me. It is not too expensive if you compare it to what the vet takes whenever my cat has some minor health issues…
What a disorganised presentation this is, the speaker should put his ideas more clearly.
How does a woman with a 28” chest get a mammogram? Tried it and they had to redo it. Ended up with an ultrasound and told to always get an ultrasound because breasts could not reach the table and resulted in shadows/unreadable. Told down the road that they couldn’t perform ultrasound until mammogram done first. Didn’t bother. When you’re flat-chested, mammograms do not work! Read, too, that there is a button on the floor and some women have actually stepped on it while plopping their breasts on the “plate” and were crushed by the top of the machine sandwiching their breast in. Barbaric!
You "read" that. It's not true, unless you really, really work to try to reach that button. They are designed so that patients don't crush themselves between the plates. It's amazing what crap it out there to scare you, that is absolutely baloney. Maybe it happened once in 1967 when they first invented the machine? Women do not "plop" their breasts on the plate. The technician places it there, and adjusts until it's in the right place. I'm sorry you had a bad and weird experience, but current machines can do flat-chested women. Go to another facility.
I'm flat chested, had my first mammogram under duress and have had pain in my right breast since. They pulled way too hard. They need to find an alternative because I won't get another one and if I get cancer it will certainly suck. But I would rather not have my breast tissue harmed and radiated every year. It's gambling, but I'm taking my chances.
@@TK.000it would suck? So does made up reasons for not getting mammograms. It may not feel good, but it does not harm you in any way. Radiated? As much as a flight from California to New York. One way.
@@amierichan7231 There are a lot of false positives and unnecessary biopsies too. I'm not going to play around with the medical system and constantly have mammograms because of white matter that they see. That's pretty normal anyway in a younger person. I do self examinations and if I feel a lump or anything I'll be sure to get it checked out. I feel like the medical institution needs to look further into this. Can you imagine taking your face and pulling hard and stretching your skin and pressing down hard and then radiating it and not damaging some tissue? How about checking for any other kind of cancers? Do they squeeze it to death and radiate it to look for cancer? No, it's only for your breast and that's delicate tissue. Yes for now I'll take my chances. No amount of radiation is good for you and the less you get, the better.
I'm a breast cancer survivor, diagnosed 4 years ago when I was 70. I'd had yearly mamograms for 30 years prior to that, and the radiologist booked me immediately for a follow-up ultrasound and confirmed the cancer mass. I always dreaded mammograms but felt they were necessary. I have to say that the exam on the NEW mammogram machine my medical group installed last year was an unforgettable experience: NO PAIN. No more squashed breast, or standing in miserably uncomfortable posture for what felt like endless minutes. It was night and day difference, so I WILL continue with yearly mammograms.
That is good news !!
What new mammogram machine are you referring to please?
Here’s a question: if they have to confirm a mammogram with an ultrasound…why not just do ultrasounds….🤯
@@WalkingOneLegAtATime Good question. Here is the answer(s):
1. Ultrasounds can't find calcifications, the early forms of breast cancer, that mammos can.
2. Ultrasounds can't see as deeply into the breast as mammos can.
3. Ultrasounds can't see the lymph nodes the way mammos can.
4. There are many more false positives with ultrasounds than mammos, leading to unnecessary biopsies.
5. Ultrasounds cannot view the entire breast, the way mammos can.
6. Ultrasounds take much longer than mammos.
Next question?. . .
But still radiation.
Women need more education about mammograms. I know someone who actually thought that doing a mammogram prevented breast cancer somehow, not caught cancer early, but prevented it from happening at all. As in, do a mammogram so you do not develop breast cancer.
I needed the mammogram to confirm my cancer and whilst I understand the risks, if I’d rejected the scan that helped confirm everything, including the spread to my lymph nodes, I may not be here today. By all means, eat well and live healthy BUT sometimes medical intervention is needed. Also self examination does not catch everything. I have two benign fibroadenomas that were detected during my mammograms (actually one only found via MRI) and I cannot feel them though I know where they are. They lie deep under tissue that makes it hard to feel. I also have larger breasts that were dense at diagnosis but fattier now due to chemotherapy induced menopause at 50. Ultrasound even struggles to confirm the small one found by MRI. All this to say mammograms are not perfect but neither is self examination. My sister also only found her cancer after insisting on an MRI because it was not clearly detected via mammogram and ultrasound due to it not being a clear lump as well as being early stage. By all means, do what you will with your bodies but don’t put your heads in the sand either.
What percentage of women got breast cancer before mammograms?
I can’t believe this! Don’t tell women not to get mammograms!! They save lives!!!
Have you read the studies??
In 2017 a mammogram found a small cancerous tumor . It was too small to feel. I had subsequent treatment. By the time it could be felt it would have been too late.
You don’t know that. It may have been fine had you left it alone. Many times they go away on their own. Prevention is the key.
I sure wouldn’t want to wait around and see if “breast cancer goes away on its own”. Highly unlikely! And yes, once a lump is large enough to be felt through self-examination it is fairly large and may have spread. But to each their own.
For the Western people almost anything can be turned into a commodity and every single person is nothing but a prospective customer. Medical profession isn't an exception either. When I was a very young fool I was very impressed by the Western people's intelligence and their quest for knowledge, but thankfully very soon l realised that all they crave for is money and power. In fact all the capitalist countries have thrived on the vices of the people, their insecurities and their fears.
You can also get thermal imaging done, or an ultrasound of the breast instead of mammograms. And if any lumps are found, get a biopsy.
They don't work as well. Read my post above as to why.
Is ultrasound a better alternative?
I had a mammogram that revealed a questionable spot. Immediately upon this discovery, the radiologist ordered an ultrasound and it was the ultrasound that revealed the lump was a calcified cyst and nothing more. My question to the doctor was why couldn’t they just have done the ultrasound initially? The reply was because they first do the mammogram. Since an ultrasound is that precisely accurate, you would think this would be the first and only method used. I will try to find a medical provider who will recommend this less risky method for my next breast exam.
Yes.
No.
If you have dense breast tissue, then what?
I had a mammgram in. January. And have. Now got a boil on my breast. Doctor give me. Antibiotics. I
My last mammogram was in January '22 and I was diagnosed in July '22 with HER2 Stage 3, Grade 3 breast cancer with lymph node involvement. I had multiple tumors but one was so large that I have no idea how the mammogram missed it.
The mammogram may have caused it along with the arrows people have taken.
@@patsmith8035watch breast surgeon Laura esserman, she said especially if you had an arrow mammograms May not be helpful because of the speed of progression
After a severly painful mammogram and all the radiation, i have not had another in 20 years and afraid to do colonoscopy, now too, after 3
You get very little radiation from a mammogram, about as much as you would being in an airplane from NYC to London-- one way. A colonoscopy is completely different from a mammogram. There are also now home tests many doctors prescribe. Also, unless you have a family history or specific situation, your odds of getting colon cancer are 1 in 20. Your odds of getting breast cancer are 1 in 8.
I would love to sue the mammogram facility that missed my breast cancer for 5 years. I am stage 4 now 2 years after being diagnosed and treated for stage 1.
I had a mammogram last week,i also have a breast cyst,after the mammogram my brest was blue and purple and extremely sore,i was miserable for about a week as the mammogram busted the cyst in my breast and i had a foul yellowish creamy substance come out and i observed small tiny black specks about two days after and haven't a clue as to what the black specs were if anyone reading this knows please comment,im not going back for another it caused more harm than good in my opinion.
So are you telling me my mammogram in my extreme breast test means nothing also ultrasound? :(
It depends on the machine and the person who reads it … my grandmother had aggressive cancer in her 80s …
I think that is unusual, most of the aggressive cancers start early, and when we are older, it is often thought that those are cancers that have been around for a while and don’t need treatment.
I'm 70 small breasts.....got an inverted nipple what's the best test ?????? Going tomorrow 7th june24
Perhaps I missed something, but it appears that there is some confusion surrounding the video title. After reviewing Dr. Levandovsky's master class webinar, I can attest that he strongly recommends the utilization of 3D mammography and breast MRI for breast cancer screening. Conversely, he does not view the use of 2D mammography as beneficial for detecting breast cancer.
Ive always thought this too!!
How many cancers are Caused by the radiation? If you have one every year, that adds up!
A friend of mine who had just gone through menopause discovered cancerous lumps in both of her breasts, only 3 weeks after having a "normal" mammogram. From age 30 on, I was told I must have a yearly mammogram because I had very dense breasts. It was many years later that I learned that the machine can't see through the dense tissue, and by having that many mammograms before menopause, I had raised my risk by 69%. I now compromise by having one done every 3 years since I had no children (4 X risk) and I am half Ashkenazi, which can raise genetic risk.
Wait-- you think that that having mammograms before age 30 raised your odds of getting breast cancer by 69%? Frankly, that's crazy. Half Ashkenazi means nothing in real life. Either you inherited a mutation, or you didn't. Go get tested for that and find out for real.
@@amierichan1428- It's what I learned 20 yrs. later from a Gyn. I don't claim to be an expert. Are you? My primary told me they do not test for those mutations unless you have at least one relative who has had it. I can't afford to pay out of pocket. I agree that those who are at risk and can afford it should get tested.
@@meagiesmuse2334I think you misunderstood what your gynecologist told you. Having mammograms does not raise your odds of getting breast cancer by anything, let alone 69%. It may improve your odds of FINDING it, but it doesn't influence you GETTING it. Next time you go, ask for clarification on that.
If you know much about your family history and there is no known cancer in your background, and they didn't all get run over by buses before age 50, then the odds are very, very much in your favour. About 15 years ago, my mother's first 0:04 cousin was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Then her sister. My mother had died from an aggressive breast cancer. My sister was diagnosed with a non-aggressive cancer 14 years younger than my mother had been. That side of the family was Ashkenazic Jewish. Uh-oh.
Except here was the glitch in the equation. My maternal grandmother and her 3 older sisters all died very old (93, 95, 98 (my grandmother) and 100 (the mother of the 2 cousins with ovarian cancer)) and none of them ever had any kind of cancer.
It turned out that that great aunt's husband and his family had generally died young of heart problems. So it had never shown up. But it had come from his side, and the BRCA mutations had nothing to do with my mother or sister's situations.
So being Ashkenazic raises your odds of having a mutation, but if if isn't in your family, it isn't in your family. You might want to call a local university with a medical department, because they might do it for you as part of their research.
@@amierichan7231 - I am already terminally ill, (not cancer)but thanks for posting the info for others to read.
Yikes. I also had a doctor recommend that I start mammograms at 35 and I certainly didn’t do that! While every individual needs to make their own choice I tend to err on the side of making proactive choices for my health over just blindly following blanket medical recommendations.
I’ve done thermography instead since my early 30s and I highly recommend it!
I had a lumpectomy. One doctor said it was nothing, the surgeon said it was a mass. I have dense breasts and it was nothing.
What was it then?
@@goldlotus7831 -benign cyst
Well my mammogram detected the breast cancer I knew I had it and could feel no lump 2 months later a lumpectomy bust reduction radiation next no chemo so it worked for me
I chose an ultrasound
(1)ask for a 3D mammogram, it’s 40% more effective, (2) I’m not dying of cancer or already dead because I had a mammogram in early 2022 and got treated.
My 1st mamo was in my 50's & I still had too dense tissue- i wont get another one. There are better scans.
No, there aren't.
I am 51 and a half and never had a mammogram and never will. My GP who I have seen for over 20 years had breast cancer and a double mastectomy and she has never advised me to have a mammogram
That is interesting. I'm getting pressure from every doctor, no other "alternative" opinion. And then pressure to get a breast biopsy😢
Did you ask her why she hasn't encouraged it?
Most insurance makes you get a mammogram before they'll pay for an ultrasound even though every time I've ever had a mammogram I've had to get an ultrasound because my breasts were dense
ThankYou ThankYou ThankYou ❤
You all just ask for an ultrasound instead….
Saved my life!
I'm 61 and never had a mammogram.
And?. ..
A person can make a statement, ya know. It's not like it's so random that it's off topic. @@amierichan7231
Thermography is safe, more effective, more reliable results and pain free
I had lumpy breast, had a biopsy said it was breast cancer in situ 1 cm it was in a milk duct. I went through radiation chemo. Followed by more chemo. Followed by my left breast developing orange peel appearance and hardening of the skin in the area of radiation. Followed by a mastectomy, followed by recurrence of cancer in area of radiation. Followed by stem cell transplant which almost killed me. I have been cancer free since 1995. Now I’m finding out after the hell I went through that breast cancer in situ is not even considered breast cancer. I am so pissed I went through all that for what??!
How did you find out you have in situ in the first place?
I suggest you watch h Gilbert Welch MD he talks a lot about this scenario
I refused to have mammograms anymore
I wish this was explained better! I am getting a mammogram tomorrow adI have no clue what is being discussed. This us too seriously to be beating around the hush or getting off topic! Just say get this instead and why!! That's all!!!
I say make the appointment make it then CANCEL!!
This video is unclear and confusing. The title is “Stop Getting Mammograms to Prevent Breast Cancer” with “Do this instead” in the thumbnail. Then he talks about 2D mammograms as antiquated and it seems he is saying to get 3D mammograms. At around 2:20 he says if you’re average risk you could probably get away with a mammogram but not 2D, then he spends about 30 seconds of this short video talking about cellphones, house phones and Tesla, finishing with at the very least an average risk woman should get a 3D mammogram. Mammograms do not prevent breast cancer and as he stated 2D is antiquated but 3D mammography is still mammography. What is it this doctor recommends we do instead? The content is antithetical to the title.
What this doctor is doing is getting attention and views and making money. He is not helping anyone deal with breast cancer. Most mammography places now use 3-D.
Stop having mammograms? Now, thats dangerous in the extreme.!!!
Great advice….🙄
Kind of like if you don't "social distance" by six feet you will drop dead in the grocery store?
What should we do instead? Did i miss that part?
Just one more example of how irresponsible this video is.
The alternative is thermography.
@@WH2012 Oh for the love of God. Thermography does not do nearly as well, that's why it isn't used as a primary diagnostic tool. It misses a lot that mammograms catch.
@@amierichan7231 Keep telling yourself that to your own potential detriment. Do you REALLY believe it to be normal to IRRADIATE highly delicate breast tissue? Even Chernobyl is presumed to be uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years. Are you a "climate activist"? Serious question.
@@amierichan7231Better yet, do nothing at all. ;0)
And yes, they are doing three de mammograms now
First mammogram was in1913.
I fortunately had a mammogram which found an early TNBC. I’m listening to you but I’m seething. If it was for men mammogram would be a sacrament
I don’t know what you’re talking about! The place where I go for my mammogram has 3-D mammography….not ancient 2-D! Stop telling women lies about not getting mammograms!
Just don’t watch this… It’s a long angry ramble followed by a link & a ”masterclass”.
No one thinks mammograms prevent BC. Title is insulting.
I’m 44 soon & im confused as to whether or not to have them. I don’t like the thought of them being squashed or the radiation I’m dreading when I have to make the decision :-/
I am 48...got one at 40. No family history. 75% of woman have dense breast up to in their 40s. I got a letter saying you have dense breast must have another mammogram and ultrasound sound. Went through anxiety, fear, worried about my young kids. Thank God for my husband staying strong and supportive. After second mammogram and ultrasound I was all clear. Now 8 years later, I have faith over fear. Doc recommendedS every year & even more advanced mammogram. I asked my Doc about radiation risks. She totally looked at me like I was paranoid. By the way many friends of mine with similar stories. All caverns are not the same, yet all are treated the same. Colonoscopy is next screening not being questioned. You are your best advocate.
Just tell the technician that you plan to say “Stop” if they push the smash button to the point of pain.
Go for a thermogram instead
@@shopgirl17 Colonoscopy is also a test which is useless to have on a regular basis unless there are symptoms to suspect a problem. Did you know that even though routine colonoscopy screenings have been heavily advocated since the 1990s, there were never any studies done until very recently to even to determine if routine colonoscopy screening made any significant difference in death rates from colon cancer? Well, a study was finally done a few years ago and It found that unless a person is in a high risk category or symptomatic, routine colonoscopy screenings don’t increase positive outcomes in the general population, and it is important not to overlook the fact that a colonoscopy is a risky procedure. Again, you should make your decision based on your own personal preference. As far as mammograms, radiation is an issue, especially when done over many decades, and studies have now been done which show that there is no significant difference in death rates from breast cancer between women who routinely get screenings and those who do not. Mammography would be useful if you are at high risk or find something suspicious. In such situations, a mammogram or breast MRI should certainly be done.
Wow! Where did you get this information from? As a mammographer with over 20 year experience, you are WRONG!!! STOP GIVING WOMEN WRONG INFORMATION
The doctor in this video says women at average risk should - at the very least - get a 3-D mammogram (!) he’s not advocating for no mammograms. Yikes. Request an ultrasound with your mammogram, it ups the detection rate
Any man could have male breast cancer and never even know it?😮
My yearly mammogram caught my breast cancer at stage 1 when I was 73. There’s no history of breast cancer in my family and yes I have dense breasts. It turns out that I have HER2 cancer which is more dangerous. I think it’s irresponsible to tell people not to get a mammogram. It’s safe and takes 5 minutes.
This is horrible advice. Ridiculous
Awful suggestion to tell people not to get mammograms!
This is so full of crap, it makes my head spin.
1. Breast cancer is NOT the most common cancer in women. It's skin cancer.
2. Mammograms are 120 years old? X-rays are (just) over 120 years old. That imaging is so far from the current technology, that it is impossible to compare them. Current mammograms are most certainly not antiquated. Current mammograms are 3-D, not 2-D.
3. Young women most certainly do not, by definition, have dense breasts.
4. There's nothing magical about certain genes?! First of all, he says that in a bizarre, no context way, but also, unfortunately, there sure is something "magical" about "certain genes". If you have a mutation on BRCA1 or BRCA2, you could be looking at an exact flip of odds if getting breast cancer, from almost 13%, to 87%.
5. "Of course" a lump didn't form in 6 months? This guy should be stripped of his medical credentials. A malignant tumor can form in whatever time it takes to form. They can form in 2 - 3 months.
6. Where is this crazy 30% effective nonsense coming from? Mammograms miss 1 in 8 cancers. That's no where near a 30% effective rate. That's a 87.5% effective rate. And the misses are much more common in women with dense breasts. Women with dense breasts are usually referred for sonograms.
Get your mammograms. Go every year. The whole point is to see comparisons of the films from year to year. They find cancer before you can feel it. They are not the most comfortable experience, but nothing like needles. They are quite quick. The compression does not cause cancer or any other medical problem. The radiation from 2 view of each breast is about .4 mSv total. A 3 hour plane ride is .1. If you are on the east coast and fly to Europe and back once, there's your .4 mSv. Are you really going to give up your trip for that? And are you really going to give up your health, maybe your life for that? Watch someone suffer with breast cancer. Watch someone die from breast cancer. As someone I know says, "I refuse to die from something preventable and treatable." Now, doesn't this seem really dumb not to do this?
Thank you for the facts and the common sense!
Just make sure you do your own research.
di4085 I always do my own research. That’s why I appreciated the posted information. Also have medical people in my family. Don’t assume you know what people do or don’t do.
The doctor speaks of technology yet has terrible sound. Old technology or not it found my daughter’s breast cancer at 29. It was just a precaution. If the doctor hadn’t erred on the side of a mammogram she’d have lost her life much sooner to this disease.
I’d much rather have my reliable Toyota to get me from point a to b than none at all. Tesla’s aren’t affordable to the average person anyway.
IF YOU SUPPORT NO MAMMOGRAMS, I TRUST YOU HAVE A VALID ALTERNATIVE!!!! I AND THOUSANDS OF WOMEN WOULD ‘NOT’ BE ALIVE IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR MAMMOGRAMS!!!! BE SAVVY WOMEN OUT THERE!
So here's a big ol' question for all you naysayers: Why do you think insurance companies pay for mammograms? Very few companies charge anything to the patient. Same reason they are so happy to pay for vaccines. Ultimately, it saves them money. Insurance companies are all about every dollar. Making sure women get mammograms means cancer is found early when the treatment is far easier and less extensive. And costs them less. And makes your life better.
It`s spelled Lewandowski, not Levandovsheyuaiuxxxxx or whatever more BS you want to add.
The breast cancer industry is a TOTAL RACKET. Fixed it for you. ;0) ✅
Care to elaborate on that? How about you go to the researchers who are constantly finding better treatments? You think that's for the money? Insane. You have "fixed" nothing, except a refusal to take advantage of real diagnosis, and encouraging others to do the same.
@@amierichan1428 Feel free to share with us about "the researchers who are constantly finding better treatments." ;0)
@@WH2012 Uhhh. . .do you understand that women survive types and stages of breast cancer that they didn't used to? That radical mastectomies used to be THE treatment and are now rarely performed? Would you rather had breast cancer in 1974, or now in 2024?
@amierichan1428- Thanks for being one of the few people with common sense.
@@suerobinson5260 it doesn't take much effort, ya know?:-)