(NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern
Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast
cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after
women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according
to background information in the study, the start of screening
mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with
increased incidence of breast cancer.
This raises some obvious
and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous
compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to
develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate
because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?
The
answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't
addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the
second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the
human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially
paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the
increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because
the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates
among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six
years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of
the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed
if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually
with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some
invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the
body's own immune system.
Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D.,
Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his
research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to
64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds
of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian
Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number
of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among
a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and
who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had
been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry.
Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a
one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.
The
researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive
breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with
mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast
cancer at every age.
"Because the cumulative incidence among
controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some
breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not
persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years,"
the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility
that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers
is to spontaneously regress."
The researchers also
conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably
the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the
detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."
This
does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After
all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American
women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears
invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least
in some people -- by the body's own innate defenses.
"Although
many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence
associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression
be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report.
"Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported,
with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a
relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as
some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations
are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead
reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their
natural course."
In an editorial in the
Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer
study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los
Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics
University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised
by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to
untreated patients with breast cancer. In addition to not knowing the
natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very
little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy
studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they
had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation
of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily
support the benefit of treatment."
Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose
work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today,
Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA’s "Healthy Years" newsletter,
Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the
Cleveland Clinic’s "Men’s Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is
protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole
responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products
and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com
is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not
be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner.
Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this
material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit
www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml
