The concept of a breast cancer that has no symptoms, which cannot be diagnosed through manual palpation of the breast and does not become invasive in the vast majority of cases, might sound unbelievable to most women.

However, there does exist a rather mysterious clinical anomaly known as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which is, in fact, one of the most commonly diagnosed and unnecessarily treated forms of 'breast cancer' today.

What women fail to understand -- because their physicians do not know better or have not taken care to explain to them -- is that they have a choice when diagnosed with DCIS.

Read full story here.

Post deleted at 17 Aug 2012 9:21am by majorminor

Unto an evil counselor close heart and ear and eye, And take a lesson from the tale. Of the spider and the fly
Hans Christian Anderson.

Sorry folks - i screwed up - Hyperlink in #2 was for wrong page.
Will repost below. and just for yvon =

This sums it up fairly well;

"For every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily.”

Reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistentyou can read detail here.

For those that can't be bothered with the above link, here is an excerpt from it;

FDA Whistleblower Accused of Blocking New Mammography Devices

In related news, Dr. Robert Smith, one of the whistleblowers who became a victim of the FDA's spy program as a result of expressing concern that faulty approval procedures allowed dangerous cancer detection devices to be approved, now stand accused of keeping such devices off the market. That's right. In this upside-down world, his actions are reportedly being scrutinized to see whether or not he might have prevented market-entry of valuable new technology in the fight against cancer.

From my perspective, based on the testimony from other FDA whistleblowers, people across the US probably owe him a debt of gratitude for standing up to immense pressure to approve unsafe devices—not reproach!

According to MassDevices.com11:

"Dr. Robert Smith spent nearly 4 years at the FDA's radiological devices arm, during which time none of the 6 digital mammography systems up for approval passed muster with the federal watchdog agency. A total of 5 such devices were approved prior to Smith's appointment and 13 have been approved since, according to the Wall Street Journal... '[Smith] was just upholding the law, being an honest and rigorous regulator,' Smith's attorney, Stephen Kohn, told the Journal. "Industry has a cozy relationship with many at the FDA, but they did not have a cozy relationship with Dr. Smith."

Mother Jones12 recently published an engaging article that summarizes the unfolding drama. So far, the evidence points to the FDA opting to put conscientious safety reviewers on the chopping block rather than displease their clients, the drug companies,—i.e. the very companies they're supposed to regulate:

"It looks like the FDA knowingly chose to expose untold thousands of people to unnecessary cancer risk to apparently to appease General Electric and other medical-device makers. And here's the kicker: The scientists were apparently right. The Times reported last week that the US Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative agency, has 'found a 'significant likelihood' that the devices posed 'a substantial and specific danger to public safety' as the scientists had warned.'"

In the military I trained in atomic and chemical warfare There is no way would anyone get me to be X-rayed more than a couple of times in my life time