Oh, 75% of breast cancer is CAUSED by mammograms?

[Chronos]

If he really did work on the Manhattan Project, the only thing that proves is that he’s really friggin’ old. And possibly senile.

[Annie-Xmas]

But…but…the anti-abortion people say abortions cause breast cancer~

[beowulff]

@Chronos

If he really did work on the Manhattan Project, the only thing that proves is that he’s really friggin’ old. And possibly senile.

He’s old (and dead). Read his bio.

[Frank_Saxon]

There is a Belgian gyneacologist who claims there is an increased risk of breast cancer from mamograms (nowhere near 75%). He based this on comparing numbers between Belgium and the Netherlands (relatively equal countries). In the Netherlands women are pro-actively examinated, while in Belgium they are not, yet in Holland the rate was higher.
He blamed the stress related to the examination as a contributing factor to actually getting breast cancer.
I heard him make his case on the radio, but wasn’t paying too much attention. This is my recollection of the argument.

[whiterabbit]

Sees to me that that Belgian doc might not have considered that mammograms and other screening is likely to find a lot more earlier cancers, before you can feel them, therefore you have more diagnoses among the screened group.

[griffin1977]

Here is the paper you may be refering too:

***Results ***From 1989 to 2006, deaths from breast cancer decreased by 29% in Northern Ireland and by 26% in the Republic of Ireland; by 25% in the Netherlands and by 20% in Belgium and 25% in Flanders; and by 16% in Sweden and by 24% in Norway. The time trend and year of downward inflexion were similar between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the Netherlands and Flanders. In Sweden, mortality rates have steadily decreased since 1972, with no downward inflexion until 2006. Countries of each pair had similar healthcare services and prevalence of risk factors for breast cancer mortality but differing implementation of mammography screening, with a gap of about 10-15 years.

***Conclusions ***The contrast between the time differences in implementation of mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality.

Again none of this supports the idea that mammograms cause breast cancers (except in a very few cases) or that thermography is any better. The issue is not even that its a particularly “bad” test its simply that when you do widespread testing in sub-section of society that is unlikely to have the disease the maths are against you. The popular belief that more testing is better, and certainly can’t do any harm, is just not borne out by the facts.

[elmwood]

@Slithy_Tove

I was at an open house event where an informal presentation was given by a chiropractor (which in itself triggers my bullshit meter) who stated that, due to the radiation and mashing involved, mammograms cause cancer.

Schrodinger’s Tits.

[Hari_Seldon]

Let me put in a good word for (some) chiropracters. I use one. Since going, I have not had any serious back problems, while before I did. Yes, correlation is not causation and I would take 100 of me and randomly assign 50 of us to him and 50 to not having treatment. He has never attempted to make a medical diagnosis or pronouncement. Now one of the things he did was assign me stretching exercises, which I do every morning. Would the exercises alone prevent back problems. Damfino!

Two more items of interest. My family doctor uses him (in fact, with great trepidation, recommended him). And the chiro himself claims that he had not been able to find, in all of Montreal, a chiro he trusts to treat him; he says most of them are quacks.