Talk about health

"No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof", Henry David Thoreau.

I found this quote the other day and I began to wonder at its relevance today when we talk about all things medical and medicinal. Whatever way we choose to go for help and sustenance, treatment and reassurance when we do something to help our health, the hope is that it is proven, tried and tested. Who wants to be a guinea pig and trial some unknown and perhaps unsafe treatment?

Not me, and I would suggest you don't either. From a conventional viewpoint, probably most alternative and complementary therapies would come into the unproven camp. Doctors tend to classify such therapies in the "nutty and extreme" file and hide it behing the sofa.

But, are they so sure they are not kidding themselves and you and me as well? Does it follow that drugs and conventional 'accepted' tests and treatmaents are proven just because they are allowed in today's medical bag of tricks?

I was struck by an article claiming to be the truth about mammograms. It's a process I've often wondered about ever since a patient of mine who became a friend told me that she was convinced that a series of mammograms she suffered during her fight against breast cancer had made the condition worse.

The simple truth was that she firmly believed she had felt something in her beast break during one of these tests. To her it was the cancer bursting and spreading the cancer cells all over her body. She told me of her beliefs on many occasions when I visited her and chatted about her health and feelings. She died shortly after.

What she told me raised doubts about the safety of mammograms, and this article confirmed them. First of all is the way the system works. The breast is compressed between two plates so that it can be scanned. The author mentioned the damage that could be done through compressing cancerous growths.

Then the author's opinion of the radiation used opened my eyes further. Apparently mammography uses low energy radiation that can be up to five times more harmful that x-rays. He concluded that ten years of annual screening will result in a 10 to 20% greater risk of causing breast cancer, and this risk is greater the younger patient on whom the tests are started.

What about the proof of safety here? Even an article in the Lancet said that mamography of pre-menstrual women had no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality. At best four women in every 10,000 might be saved. Not wonderful for the vast majority although the four saved would be eternally grateful.

And 1 in 10 women may be the victims of false positive results, and some may have unnecessary treatment including mastectomy as a result.

Finally, it is said that if women examined their breast carefully they would stand just as good a chance of discovering cancer as the complex and possible dangerous mammogram.

The alternative view is that a technigue called 'Thermography' or thermal imaging is less dangerous and more effective. It's in its infancy right now but if it clearly show a hot spot of cancer, then full diagnostic mammography would be a logical second step.

Whatever your view, it's by no means certain that mammography as a one-and-only tool is the best thing to do. Let's not get carried away and assume that just because governments accept it, it really is the way to go. Where is the proof? Just who are the guniea pigs being used to test the system?

It isn't good enough to quote statistics because as we all know you can use statistics to prove anything. What we need is an unbiased review of the good and bad of mammography, and a proper investigation of the results. Then we need research into the alternatives - which exist but are dismissed for lack of proof!

Women havenot been told the truth about mammograms. It's about time they were.

Let me know what you think.

Wishing you the best of health.