9 out of 10 Women Misinformed about Mammograms

9 out of 10 Women Misinformed about Mammograms
4.68 (93.62%) 69 votes

Most women are just being told what to do, rather than being given the facts necessary to make a fully-informed decision.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Selling [cancer] screening can be easy,” starts an editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Induce fear by exaggerating risk. [Then,] [o]ffer hope by exaggerating the benefit of screening. And, don’t mention harms [caused by the screening].” This ploy “is especially easy with cancer—no diagnosis is more dreaded. And, we all know the mantra: early detection is the best protection. Doubt it, and someone may suggest you need your head examined.” And, they are not exaggerating.

“Screening can lead to important benefits, but it can also lead to important harms.” And, so, that’s the big challenge: “conveying the counterintuitive idea that screening [doesn’t] always help—and can even be harmful.” Yet, “[s]urveys have shown that most people believe that cancer screening is almost always a good idea and few believe harm [is even] possible.” In patient-education materials, “passing reference[s] to potential harms [may] deceptively [be] “buried [under] a euphoria of benefits.”

The cancer screening test that has been most carefully studied is mammograms. “In the past 50 years, more than 600,000 women have participated in 10 randomized trials… Given this extraordinary research effort, [it’s] ironic that [mammograms] continue…to be one of the most contentious issues within the medical community.” “There are few [things in medicine] that invoke more passion…than mammograms, with both sides, ironically, accusing the media of being in the opposite camp.

But, this contentiousness “is in itself instructive.” I mean, it should tell us something. “For context, “a [single study] involving fewer than 150 men who were followed for less than 2 years was sufficient to convince physicians of the value of treating severe [high blood pressure],” because the benefits were just so obvious; whereas after 10 trials, 600,000 women, the fact that we’re “still debating the…merits of [mammograms] 50 years later suggests that it’s “a close call” between the benefits and harms. But, that’s assuming people are weighing the pros and cons objectively. It may be worse than that, given the multibillion-dollar industries involved, from the mammogram-machine manufacturers to the radiologists that read them.

“Several organizations publish [contradictory] cancer screening recommendations.” Some say mammograms starting at age 40; others say 50. Some say every year; some say every other year, and some say women shouldn’t get them routinely at all. “There is increasing concern” that these disagreements may be arising from “both financial and emotional conflicts of interest.” People can get so invested in their position that they’ve staked out that it kind of clouds their judgement.

“Reasonable experts agree that the body of evidence suggests that there is some benefit to mammography… Although the benefits…have almost certainly been exaggerated, this does not mean that [mammograms don’t] save lives, or that women shouldn’t get [them].” The question is: do the benefits outweigh the risks? That’s a decision each woman has to make for themselves, but they can’t do that without knowing all the facts.

Women are so bombarded with information about mammograms, you’d think women would be “fairly knowledgeable” about it. “Yet nothing is farther from the truth.” Nine out of ten women surveyed “vastly overestimated the benefit[s],” or had no idea. It’s not the women’s fault, though. They’re obviously being misinformed by the system. Most American women didn’t even appear to understand the basic concept of screening, thinking mammograms somehow help prevent you from getting breast cancer in the first place. This “raises doubts” about how well women are being informed. Sounds like “[w]omen are just being told what they should do, but without being given the facts necessary to make informed decisions…As a result of this paternalism and pink ribbon culture, almost all women have a false impression of the benefit of mammography screening… Most surprisingly, those who frequently consulted their physicians and health pamphlets were slightly worse informed.” So, they were like anti-educated by their doctors. And, the problem is that ‘these kinds of inaccurate and exaggerated perceptions” prevent women from making an “informed choice.”

“Misleading women, whether intentionally or unintentionally,…is a serious issue. All of those in the business of informing women about screening should recall that medical systems are for patients, not the other way around.”

“We should not [just blindly] be selling screening. We should be giving people the numbers they need to decide for themselves.” That’s why I created this video series. “The question of whether screening mammography does more harm than good has the potential to shake up the state of [our] medical knowledge [and] alter our views of ethical [medical] practice…The stakes are high in this discourse because women’s lives hang in the balance.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: KOMUnews via flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Selling [cancer] screening can be easy,” starts an editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Induce fear by exaggerating risk. [Then,] [o]ffer hope by exaggerating the benefit of screening. And, don’t mention harms [caused by the screening].” This ploy “is especially easy with cancer—no diagnosis is more dreaded. And, we all know the mantra: early detection is the best protection. Doubt it, and someone may suggest you need your head examined.” And, they are not exaggerating.

“Screening can lead to important benefits, but it can also lead to important harms.” And, so, that’s the big challenge: “conveying the counterintuitive idea that screening [doesn’t] always help—and can even be harmful.” Yet, “[s]urveys have shown that most people believe that cancer screening is almost always a good idea and few believe harm [is even] possible.” In patient-education materials, “passing reference[s] to potential harms [may] deceptively [be] “buried [under] a euphoria of benefits.”

The cancer screening test that has been most carefully studied is mammograms. “In the past 50 years, more than 600,000 women have participated in 10 randomized trials… Given this extraordinary research effort, [it’s] ironic that [mammograms] continue…to be one of the most contentious issues within the medical community.” “There are few [things in medicine] that invoke more passion…than mammograms, with both sides, ironically, accusing the media of being in the opposite camp.

But, this contentiousness “is in itself instructive.” I mean, it should tell us something. “For context, “a [single study] involving fewer than 150 men who were followed for less than 2 years was sufficient to convince physicians of the value of treating severe [high blood pressure],” because the benefits were just so obvious; whereas after 10 trials, 600,000 women, the fact that we’re “still debating the…merits of [mammograms] 50 years later suggests that it’s “a close call” between the benefits and harms. But, that’s assuming people are weighing the pros and cons objectively. It may be worse than that, given the multibillion-dollar industries involved, from the mammogram-machine manufacturers to the radiologists that read them.

“Several organizations publish [contradictory] cancer screening recommendations.” Some say mammograms starting at age 40; others say 50. Some say every year; some say every other year, and some say women shouldn’t get them routinely at all. “There is increasing concern” that these disagreements may be arising from “both financial and emotional conflicts of interest.” People can get so invested in their position that they’ve staked out that it kind of clouds their judgement.

“Reasonable experts agree that the body of evidence suggests that there is some benefit to mammography… Although the benefits…have almost certainly been exaggerated, this does not mean that [mammograms don’t] save lives, or that women shouldn’t get [them].” The question is: do the benefits outweigh the risks? That’s a decision each woman has to make for themselves, but they can’t do that without knowing all the facts.

Women are so bombarded with information about mammograms, you’d think women would be “fairly knowledgeable” about it. “Yet nothing is farther from the truth.” Nine out of ten women surveyed “vastly overestimated the benefit[s],” or had no idea. It’s not the women’s fault, though. They’re obviously being misinformed by the system. Most American women didn’t even appear to understand the basic concept of screening, thinking mammograms somehow help prevent you from getting breast cancer in the first place. This “raises doubts” about how well women are being informed. Sounds like “[w]omen are just being told what they should do, but without being given the facts necessary to make informed decisions…As a result of this paternalism and pink ribbon culture, almost all women have a false impression of the benefit of mammography screening… Most surprisingly, those who frequently consulted their physicians and health pamphlets were slightly worse informed.” So, they were like anti-educated by their doctors. And, the problem is that ‘these kinds of inaccurate and exaggerated perceptions” prevent women from making an “informed choice.”

“Misleading women, whether intentionally or unintentionally,…is a serious issue. All of those in the business of informing women about screening should recall that medical systems are for patients, not the other way around.”

“We should not [just blindly] be selling screening. We should be giving people the numbers they need to decide for themselves.” That’s why I created this video series. “The question of whether screening mammography does more harm than good has the potential to shake up the state of [our] medical knowledge [and] alter our views of ethical [medical] practice…The stakes are high in this discourse because women’s lives hang in the balance.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: KOMUnews via flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

I think I do a pretty good job in the video explaining why I decided to take on this topic. There’s just so much confusion, combined with the corrupting commercial interests of a billion-dollar industry. As with any important health decision, everyone should be fully informed of the risks and benefits, and make up their own mind about their own bodies. That’s why I created this 14-part video series.

So that NutritionFacts.org isn’t all-mammograms-all-the-time for weeks, we’re only going to run a few of these back-to-back at a time, interspersing them in our “regularly scheduled programming.” Please give us feedback as to whether I should continue to do more of these deep dives, or if you prefer more superficial coverage across a greater variety of topics (or if we’ve hit the perfect Goldilocks mix!).

Stay tuned for the rest of the videos in this 14-part series, which will come out over the next month and a half:

I was able to fit colon cancer screening into just one video if you can believe it! Here you go if you missed it: Should We All Get Colonoscopies Starting at Age 50?

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

171 responses to “9 out of 10 Women Misinformed about Mammograms

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer moderators by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

      1. “That’s why I created this video series” – as Dr. Greger says in the video. Scroll down to the notes and you’ll see thirteen more detailed videos.




        9
  1. Three years ago I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and 2 infected lymph nodes.
    Got two operations, mastectomy and all lymph nodes under the arm are also removed. Then I followed Dr. J. McDougall’s recommendations, a whole food plant based diet and more exercise. Now I have to be checked once a year, and have a mammography made. Is always in doubt about whether it is better not to do this? Sorry for my English, I am from the Netherlands.
    What is the best??




    10
    1. HI, Ingrid. If I understood correctly, Dr. G. will be making a multi-video series about this topic, including (surely) some nutrition related episodes. In the meantime, you might want to visit some of the other video links above to get familiar with the big picture.

      May God protect you and keep you healthy.




      14
    2. Hallo Ingrid. Heb je het boek How Not To Die gelezen? Ik geloof dat de Nederlandse titel is: Hoe Overleef je? Geschreven door Michael Greger, MD en Gene Stone. Heel recente, up-to-date informatie betr. voeding bij kanker. Ook Antikanker, een nieuwe levensstijl, geschreven door David Servan-Schreiber. Uit 2011 geloof ik, dus wat verouderd, maar veel heel nuttige info. Alleen, hij raadt nog wat zuivel en olien + vlees en eieren aan, maar ik zou ze uit m’n dieet laten.

      Het boek Hoe Overleef Je geeft hele goede info over je dagelijkse dieet. Ook heel makkelijk te volgen. Het boek Antikanker geeft ook fylosofische info + psychische info/emoties en levensstijl.

      Ik raad beide boeken daarom aan.

      Sterkte,
      Leni.




      0
      1. Hallo Leni,

        Het boek “How not to Die”heb ik gelezen. Het andere nog niet, zal ik eens gaan bekijken.

        Ik volg een Whole food plant based diet, nu ruim 3 jaar.

        Slik ook al 3 jaar Anastrozol, een aromatase remmer.(twijfel hier ook over, doorgaan of niet)

        Heb geen chemo gedaan (Dr.J.Mcdougall geraadpleegd) en dus vegan.

        Hier maar op vertrouwen. (wel moeilijk).

        Groetjes Ingrid.




        0
          1. Een aromatase remmer, geven ze vaak als de tumor in de borst in dit geval, hormoongevoelig is.

            De aromatase remmer houdt de oestrogenen laag. Maar heeft ook zo zijn bijwerkingen, zoals ieder

            medicijn. Maar ik durf ze nog niet te laten staan.

            Nogmaals dank voor je bericht.




            1
  2. It’s always good to question what we think we know. The trusted axioms that we refer to in making our health decisions sometimes turn out to be faulty and therefor should be continuously scrutinized. We should be especially skeptical about any medical advice that came to us in the form of an advertisement.




    12
    1. This unfortunately just seems the tip of the iceberg.

      Medical care now officially rates as the third leading cause of death – but this statistic only includes deaths resulting from a limited set of acknowledged medical mistakes. (https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf) If one included all deaths resulting from medical treatments, including conventionally accepted but in fact harmful treatments, I expect iatrogenic deaths would earn the number one spot by a wide margin. It does not help that for the medical industry financial gain, and not the health of patients, has clearly become the main motivating factor.

      In the early days of computing, the phrase “”garbage in garbage out” (GIGO) became deservedly popular. Feed false information into a computer, no matter how advanced, and false conclusions will come out. Garbage in, garbage out applies not just to computers, but to humans. Intentional frauds routinely perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry, from which the FDA has failed to protect us (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779#t=article), added to numerous other problems in scientific research (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&type=printable) has undoubtedly and unfortunately filled the heads of today’s medical professionals with a great deal of garbage.

      Dr. John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, summed up the situation as follows: “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” (13) Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of The Lancet, perhaps the most respected peer-reviewed medical journal in the world, agreed. He wrote: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss%25253Dyes)

      When it comes to following a doctor’s advice, caveat emptor!, rather than trust, has clearly become the wiser option..

      We unfortunately now live in a post-truth world. Invalid but compelling misinformation has become increasingly abundant, and trustworthy information has become ever harder to find. Research into the effects of diet and lifestyle have made it clear that our bodies have an astounding ability to heal, so long as we give them what they need to heal, AND so long as we stop doing what makes them sick. Of course, in practice this can prove rather tricky, as many people don’t have a clue to what their bodies need to heal, and have become sadly out of touch with respect to what they’ve done that made them sick. NFO has gone a long way in providing necessary information in a format most people can understand, so that they can make better healthcare decisions. Kudos to Dr. Greger and his staff for the service they provide!




      38
      1. Alef1,

        Re:”We unfortunately now live in a post-truth world. Invalid but compelling misinformation has become increasingly abundant, and trustworthy information has become ever harder to find. ”

        The above quote and your whole last paragraph explains why I and many other people are now coming to the NutritionFacts.org website! Great post.




        18
        1. Thanks.

          Also, I especially appreciate the transparency of this website, with respect to making the source research information easily available to viewers so they can check up on it, to see if Dr. Greger represented a study fairly, and/or investigate further if they have the need.

          NFO videos not only shows actual pages and figures from the published research Dr. Greger cites, it also has a “Sources Cited” section, where a click of your mouse will take you to either the research paper itself, or at least to an abstract.

          Compare that to other websites, where even if they present their references, do so without hot links – which means readers need to laboriously type in the information, and oftentimes spend at least a few minutes searching, and much more for a reader who does not already know how to search the medical literature. The Life Extension Foundation seems a particularly good example of using this method to make it hard for readers to check up on them. Although they sometimes provide references to very interesting research studies, they provide an overabundance of them in tiny type without hotlinks, sometimes into the hundreds. And their articles, when referring to specific studies often seem so ambiguous that you can’t tell whether a study took place on humans, mice, or on cells in a petri dish. And if a reader wants to check up on whether they quoted a study correctly, gilded the lily, or simply misquoted it, they make it quite difficult to do so.

          Although I do not always agree with Dr. Greger, or in the way he reports and interprets some research study, I find him refreshingly open and aboveboard. And to me that puts NFO head and shoulders above pretty much any other source I know of for nutritional and health information out there.




          18
          1. Ed Kellogg thanks for the reminder why we like dr G. what else I like about this website is the fact that dr. Greger is not actively trying to “sell us something”. Most nutritional websites blogs or what are trying to sell you some over priced bogus supplements, or taking big money from advertisers. To me that says more about DR G’s credibility than anything else except his actually showing multitudes of evidence for what he believes.

            If this site was about the political movement of veganism or trying to sell me this or that I would be gone.




            12
      2. A year ago my conventional doctor did a breast exam and he scared me by saying he found 3 lumps. Before that time i had told him i will not get mammograms due to the radiation. , but he scared me and i did it. The nurse there did NOT feel ANY lumps at all! I did the test. Came out negative and just said i have dense breasts and should get a m. twice a yr. I never went back and never will. I am thinking of Thermagraphy instead. So after i got the m. I researched it more and found out that ONE xray gives you the same amount of radiation as 1,000 chest xrays! And we get 2 on each breast so that equals 4,000 chest xrays! I got rid of my conventional doctor and found a Holistic MD and see him. He looked at the mammogram result and said it was fine. I go to him now for my blood pressure med cuz the conventional doctor almost killed me by giving me the water pills which lowered my potassium a lot and my heart went out of rhythm for three months. It was horrible. I had to get tests and take p. pills and drink lots of coconut water. It took me more than 3 months to get better. My holistic MD – a real MD who turned holistic and is called Intergrative – mixing both conventional and alternative. He’s great. He told me what supplements to take to help lower the blood pressure and it helps a lot. I have read that getting a mammogram once a yr for ten yrs can raise your breast cancer risk to 10-20 percent due to all the radiation!




        6
        1. I put a lot of blame on the food industry for the amount of breast cancer in this country. If we as children were taught the science of a whole plant food diet at an early age, and if the message was reinforced over and over each year we progressed, then almost everyone would be eating healthy foods and disease would be greatly reduced. The blame can be spread around to the food industry, medical industry, politicians, and even the educational institutions. We are all so lucky to have discovered Dr. Greger. But, what about all the millions out there who are just living their life by the roll of the dice.




          9
        2. I have never understood why they don’t use ultrasound routinely instead of mammography. That’s the next step after they find a problem anyway. And it’s so much less risky.
          I have found a PA that just does the screening tests I ask for.




          2
          1. I mentioned my concern about mammography and radiation to my primary care physician years ago, and asked if ultrasounds or thermography could be done instead. Her response was “We don’t do it that way,” and she did not address my concern at all. My interpretation is that the insurance company dictates what tests will, and will not, be done. I haven’t had the screening for about 6 years now (I’m 59). I get robocalls and postcards constantly reminding me that I’m overdue for my mammogram; and at every type of routine appointment, I’m strongly urged to schedule a mammogram. They are hard-selling it all the time, as if my life depends on it! But I’ll wait until I view all of Dr. G’s videos on this topic before deciding whether to EVER get another one.




            2
          2. Ultrasound does not detect microcalcifications which can be the sole manifestation of breast cancer. They are not palpable and can only be detected by mammography.




            0
            1. I just had a mammogram and it came back with microcalifications on my left side. I had more pictures taken on the left side and an ultrasound done last Friday. I wasn’t happy about all of that radiation from the mammograms. Now they want me to have a core biopsy to test if it’s cancer or not. I am so on the fence about this. I am not interested in having any chemo or radiation even if it comes back positive. The only reason I feel guilty not perusing this is that I have a husband and 12 year old son. I am 44 years old. I don’t have a family history of breast cancer and I am healthy otherwise. I am so confused at this point. I wish there was a non invasive way to test and see if it comes back cancerous or not. But then I think, if it is, what will I do about that information. Ugh.




              1
        3. I read the pro and cons of both medicines. Truly, sad anyone get an unexperienced doc like that. After decades of endometriosis, surgeries, I am left childless, but still have to get mammograms to make sure my naturally large breasts don’t give me anymore trouble. I have history of fibrocystic cysts which are painful. Apparently my lot in life. But the mammograms have been fine and I m very happy with my doctors.




          0
        4. Marie, I had my doctor get super pushy when I declined to get anymore mammograms. Over the last few years I’ve had two, and one ultrasound when the mammogram was inconclusive. My Dr did a quick manual breast exam and said she”felt something suspicious”. I let her go through the motions of my agreeing to a diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound, but later I decided… I don’t trust her. I think that if I hadn’t declined her high pressure tactics and had agreed to get a mammogram, she wouldn’t have “felt something suspicious”. I have fibrocystic lumpy breasts, and mammograms hurt! I think she wanted to install fear into me so I’d get the mammogram.




          0
  3. My breast cancer story began many years ago and it is safe to say, as a medical consumer of the industry, i have much to say. In the intests of brevity, my biggest complaint is that the technoligy is used poorly for younger women with traditionally dense breast tissues where lumps and tumors are more difficult to see clinically and the medical training and protocol is poorly applied… that lead to my stage 2 diagnosis which I now know could have been avoided. Mamo can be great but might be only as good as the clinical team using it.




    11
    1. When I was expressing my concerns about mammograms to my doctor, I mentioned that, too — that I had dense breast tissue, and I’d read that this makes mammograms less effective. (I’d been told after all previous mammograms (by the radiologist, I think; not my primary doc) that my dense breast tissue made the results harder to determine — and as a result, sometimes had to get a second mammogram!) My doctor’s reply to that was “You don’t have dense breast tissue.” Sheesh!




      0
  4. The issue I have with this video is that I do not know at the end if benefits outweigh harm – or not. This is needed to make an informed decision, correct?




    2
    1. You have to outweigh the risk of false positive versus the probability of actually detecting cancer. False positive means that the diagnostic tells you that you have cancer when you don’t. To make matter worse, I read that mammogram has false negative as well, i.e. it tells you that you don’t have cancer when you have.

      Overall, I read that the probability of actually detecting cancer when there is, is less than 50%. So it means that more than half of the cases, it is either false positive or false negative.

      The above numbers are all what I read and believe, but it depends on where you read the statistics, they may tell you a different story, that mammogram does detect cancer correctly.

      Like Dr G said, it is each woman responsibility and right to look at which statistics they want to believe, and make their own informed decision. Don’t take my words or any relatives or friends words but you have to make your own decision.




      6
      1. A retired oncologist in America came to the conclusion stated in an online blog that false positives may well be not be false but that the body deals with the cancer prior the operation.After having a dcs removed my wife declined further ‘conventional’ treatment in spite of the scare tactics of the NHS consultant. A later lump close to the surface has gone after application of dmso and lugol’s iodine 50/50mix,this took several months and was somewhat uncomfortable immediately after daily application. Interesting that you cannot buy iodine from Chemists in the UK (available online) older doctors regarded it as a commendable remedy for many afflictions. Replaced with patented alternatives I guess its the usual case of follow the money if we wish to understand why.




        1
        1. The following is n=1 sample.

          One of my coworkers had some kind of cancer when she was in the 30s. She is now in the 60s and she is still relatively well.

          Everytime her cancer came back, all she did was to have surgery to remove the big tumor but she had no chemo. She eats healthy, swims everyday and smoke marijuana during the time when her cancer is in reminiscence (she is not addicted).

          Apparently all the things she did above kept her alive. Note that her cancer is still there and did not go away.

          And that’s what I kept reading. A cancer will kill someone if it grows out of control. But leave it alone then it will leave you alone too. But the chemo will sometimes trigger the cancer to grow into a tumor that is resistant to chemo. Also when they do biopsy, they disturb the cancer tumor and make it spread elsewhere. Doctors are obsessed in this country to remove any trace of cancer.

          In the case of my coworker, she only had surgery only whenever the tumor grows too big.

          Again, it’s only n=1 sample.




          3
          1. You can’t be addicted physically to marijuana. At best you can use it as an emotional go to. Not the same as an addiction like from crack or heroine or alcohol.




            2
          2. I agree about the bad food. I once knew a nutritionist friend who said that “If they did not tamper with the food supply we would all be more healthy and have less cancer.” It makes a lot of sense.




            1
            1. I asked my parents how many people they knew in their generation, and in my grandparents who had cancer. Answer just one. Who can say that now?




              1
          3. It is true about the cancer spreading when they do a biopsy. I’ve known that for over 40 yrs. (in my 60’s now) And you know how they say that if you can live 5 yrs it means you are a survivor and the cancer is gone and has not spread? But what they DON’T tell you is that the STATISTICS are that MOST people never make it to 5 yrs!!! They only make it to 2-3 yrs with Conventional poison radiation/chemo “therapy”. I have a friend who has prostate cancer 3 yrs already. It was stage 2 Aggressive and right away they wanted to do radiation and hormone shots. He did the biopsy and it’s lucky that it did not spread. He just had a bone scan and MRI a month ago and did not spread to the bones after 3 yrs. He did alternatives instead. He did B17, pancreatic enzymes, i think Wobozyme, baking soda & molassis, fish oil, D, oh, and selenium is very important too. His cancer has not spread in 3 yrs. He would have been dead in 2-3 yrs if he did the radiation. He is strong and shovels my driveway for me. He did some Budwig diet too with the cottage cheese and flax oil.




            0
    2. Yes, there are many more videos coming out on this! You can see the full list in the Doc Notes (note that the links will not be active until each video is published).




      3
  5. My wife’s physician is an ardent supporter of the “start at 40 and get them every year” philosophy. Thus my wife (a 30-year vegan) took her physician’s advice and was referred for yearly mammograms at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. As a result of this regimen, DCIS (ductal carcinoma in-situ) was discovered in her left breast only 4 years into her annual screenings. It is fair to say that her cancer diagnosis can be classified as “early detection” which is considered critical in increasing survival rates and reducing recurrence.

    The individual who found the DCIS in my wife was Dr. Karina Bukhanov. Dr. Bukhanov not only saw these microcalcifications in my wife’s left breast but she was also crucial in conducting the digital-mammography guided, core-biopsy. It was this more crucial procedure, and the subsequent pathology of those biopsies, that confirmed the presence of DCIS. Dr. Bukhanov is a breast radiologist with the University Health Network and Assistant Professor at the Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto where she has been Head of Breast Imaging for many years. She has extensive experience in digital mammography – which she introduced into Canada – as well as breast ultrasound, breast MRI, and the interventional procedures associated with each modality.

    Consequently, my wife opted for a double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery. The pathology of the excised tissue showed it was indeed cancerous and the margins were good. She is alive today and, hopefully, we will be able to grow old together. My wife is also a fairly high-profile animal rights activist. We are both very glad she is alive today for many reasons, not the least of which, is that she continues to be able to fight for, and save, countless farmed animals in Canada and elsewhere.




    18
  6. Is it true that we have newer, better detection methods? Like hi-def ultra sound and other scans.

    My wife has been sent for two mammograms and found nothing. Then onto ultrasound I think. And found a tumor. She had it remove with no biopsy. And it was benign.

    The second time the exact same thing happened a few years later. My opinion is mammograms are worthless in light of newer sceening technology. Let me know if you disagree. To me it seems like they are still trying to recoup money from an outdated technology and double bill when you have to have another type of screening done anyway.




    6
  7. Hi, unrelated question to your video. Just finished reading “How Not To Die” and came to your site hoping to ask a medical question.
    In “How Not To die” he talks about eating a plant based diet to prevent Alzheimer’s and a bunch of other chronic diseases. He briefly mentions Huntington’s Disease but didn’t talk much on it. My question is, would the plant based diet help prevent onset of Huntington’s disease? My father has it and I tested positive for the gene mutation and hoping to do anything I can to prevent onset.




    2
    1. Joe,

      I think there is much hope in the “Gene’s are not destiny” discussions I see in multiple WFPB postings. I can’t find them just now, but I urge you to look around for them. I think Campbell discussed this in “The China Study,” and I’ve seen it elsewhere, as well.

      Best!




      2
    2. Joe, You asked about the possibility of a plant-based diet to prevent onset of Huntington’s disease, and I know you have already received some replies encouraging you to focus on the growing knowledge that genes are not destiny and the connection being explored between uric acid and Huntington’s. I would also add that of course dealing with a known genetic defect disease, the tremendous stress that puts you under certainly can be moderated by a healthy diet. Your stress levels can certainly take a toll on your health and the more you can eat a diet that provides anti-stress, immune-boosting nutrients, the better you can handle the great challenges you face both in concern for your father and concern for your own future. Diet is something you can control and focusing on that is crucial for anyone in your shoes. Best of health to you.




      4
    3. Joe

      I don’t think that a lot is known about this matter at the moment however a whole food plant based diet will almost certainly improve your overall health.

      There is also evidence that suggests that eliminating dairy products from your diet in particular may significantly reduce your risk of developing this disease

      “researchers found that higher consumption of dairy products more than doubled the risk for onset, known as phenoconversion.”
      https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811208#vp_1

      There is also some evidence that high protein diets may accelerate HD progression in mice but the littte work – short term studies – that has been done in humans so far hasn’t been able to confirm this effect.
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127654

      Nonetheless, you may want to consider a high carb low protein diet. Plant foods tend to be lower in protein than animal foods anyway but you may want to emphasise plant foods with lower protein contents as tends to the case with the starch heavy diet favoured by Dr McDougall.
      https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/free-mcdougall-program/




      3
  8. I guess I must be in the 1 out of 10 women who knew about the misleading perceptions of mammography: Breast cancer runs in my family, so I’ve lived with the specter of this disease since I was 10 years old when my mother was first diagnosed in her late 30s. (She lived to age 93, after a second breast cancer diagnosis in her late 70s.) And I have done a lot of research and reading since. One of my biggest concerns about mammography is that it tends to find cancers that would not be life threatening (e.g., most DCIS) and it tends to miss the more aggressive cancers. Which happened to my sister: 8 months after a “clean” screening mammogram, she discovered a tumor that was already 2.5 cm — so it was fast growing and aggressive, as confirmed by biological markers, and it was completely missed by routine screening. (She is still with us 20+ years later.)

    I don’t even trust diagnostic mammograms; my aunt was told after discovering a lump and having a mammogram that she did not have breast cancer — she died of highly aggressive breast cancer a few years later at age 38. I’m hoping that the technology has improved in the almost 30 years since.

    And after being diagnosed with breast cancer in my early 60s (a lump was found during a manual exam), when I asked whether screening mammography improves overall mortality and quality of life (my gold standards) after a diagnosis, I was told: We think that because it “saves lives” before a diagnosis, that it saves lives afterward, but we don’t have any actual evidence that this is true. (But what about quality of life?) I hope that Dr. Greger is able to find more information about this than my “cancer care specialists” — and me.




    9
  9. Thank you Dr. Gregor for taking on this issue! I respect your work and I look forward to your future videos.
    With a very low risk of breast cancer and after experiencing harm at the hands of imaging industry, I decided last year to no longer receive routine cancer screenings. I made this decision after much thought and much research. I’m sure this will be a battle I will fight with every provider I encounter from now on, but I have taken charge of my own heath and will manage my own decisions from now on.




    12
    1. I am in the same boat…I am 41 and my doctor wants me to start getting mammograms. I have no history in my family, and am a vegan. I am so confused as to what to do! I am greatly looking forward to the rest of this series…hopefully I can get a few more in before the clinic calls me again for an appointment ;)




      0
    2. Susan, in my family with extensive history of breast cancer, all the cancers were detected manually (though to be fair, some was diagnosed before screening mammography became routine). But screening mammography did not detect my sister’s breast cancer, which showed up 8 months after a clean screening — and it was aggressive. My own breast cancer was also diagnosed by manual exam. My personal opinion is that women should definitely seek medical care for any symptoms, but that screening mammography has been oversold: it detects far too many cancers that would not be life threatening (many DCIS) and misses too many aggressive cancers, which can grow fast between yearly screenings. It also has too many false positives: I think that maybe about 80% of biopsies ordered after an “abnormal” mammogram are benign. But you known what? Biopsies are scary and can be incredibly painful (mine hurt more with more bruising than the subsequent lumpectomy). So the benefits vs risks of screening mammography seem similar to those of PSA tests for prostate cancer — which is now no longer recommended as a routine screening test.

      I look forward to the future videos. Maybe our questions will be answered.




      5
    3. I hear you on your informed decision possibly resulting in many “battles,” but you may also encounter some surprises. I was referred to a female surgeon a few years ago for a completely unrelated issue (hip pain). As “breast health” was one of her practice specialties (as a surgeon, mind you), when she found out it had been several years since my last screening mammo, she started applying the typical pressure. As a WFPB vegan for 13 years at that point and a patient of Dr. McDougall’s for 6, w/no family history & virtually no risk factors, and having read “Over-Diagnosed” by C. Gilbert Welch, MD, I was able to explain my reasons for declining. To my surprise (& dismay), she actually concurred! She said most of the cancers found by screening mammograms were a fairly common type that nearly always resolve on their own, & would never have been noticed nor done any harm if not for the mammogram. Who, though, is likely to be told they have breast cancer of any kind and opt to do nothing? And so, every patient of hers got surgery and/or chemo and/or radiation, because, she said, “it’s what they expect and demand.” While gratified to hear her confirm the info I had gotten from Dr. McDougall and Dr. Welch on the subject, I was dimayed that the subject would never have been discussed had I not been the one to bring it up! Similar thing happened with an ortho and my declining his suggestion I get a bone density test (he didn’t bother to argue, just gave me a sheepish grin I interpreted to say, “Ah, I see you’re aware of our con!”), and to a man, Jim, I met who’d been dx’d with prostate cancer. After being told the usual options (surgery, radiation, etc), Jim, a gruff, older Idaho rancher, asked his doctor if there was anything he could be doing to improve his prognosis. His doctor replied, “Yes, but you’re not going to like it.” Tell me anyway, said Jim, so the dr said, “Stop eating meat and dairy.” Jim indeed didn’t like it, but took the initiative to do his own research and learned about the benefits of a plant-based diet, which he immediately adopted. Again, it was gratifying to know the doctor was aware, but shame on him for withholding that info b/c he had judged that his patient “wouldn’t like it!” I’m sure his patient didn’t like being told he had cancer (& should have risky, unpleasant, invasive treatments) either, but his doctor overcame his qualms about telling him that! It is most vexing. (I was most gratified last year to find a wonderful GP who heartily embraces both a holistic, integrative approach to well-being, to include a WFPB diet, about which she educates & encourages her patients and her colleagues).
      Anyway, glad to see this “deep dive” series here! We really do need to be our own informed advocates, as best we’re able. Not always easy!




      11
      1. Name correction: H. Gilbert Welch, MD (not C. Gilbert Welch). Full title of his book: Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.
        (Sure miss having an edit function!)




        1
  10. Good video and series to come.

    Like I said above, I READ (and I stress the words “I READ”, that the rate of mammogram actually telling that a woman has cancer, is less than 50%. This is what I read but you may see different statistics being published.

    From my personal experience, I am a man but none of the women in my family, including my wife and daughters, have any mammogram for a long time after we were more informed years ago.

    The problem is that we already eat healthy and live healthy and do everything to prevent cancer in the first place, and if we know that we have cancer then what do we do? Have chemo or have surgery to remove the breast?

    Having said the above, we still think that early detection of cancer is crucial, and I read from various statistics that early treatment may extend life for more than a decade. So that’s a dilemma. The women in my family will make their own decision, and they decide to have no mammogram.

    There are a lot of symptoms that indicate that one has cancer, such as getting unexplained pain or tiredness, unexplained fever, cough with blood, etc. For people with chronic illness then they cannot tell but noone in my family has any simple pain or illness and so we know immediately if there is any change in the body. We regularly take blood pressure measurement and cholesterol measurement – yes cholesterol although I don’t quite believe it. What we are looking for is any change in the body that is indicative of something, not necessarily cancer.

    For men, I read that test for prostate cancer, is also bogus, and I refuse to take it. Again, you may read different statistics. Same with colonoscopy test, I refuse to take it personally.

    On the other hand, I read in the news the other day that they now have a cheap and quick test to detect any kind of cancer in the very early stage. I have not read the news carefully but I am afraid that this is another test that will have a lot of false positive results. Everybody have cancer cells in their body and so having cancer cells do not mean that one has cancer.

    Back to breast cancer, I stopped giving any money to those pink ribbon events years ago because I think it is just Big Pharma marketing drive.




    10
    1. I used to participate in the “Relay for Life” breast cancer walks. I learned that the American Cancern Society takes in about a billion dollars a year. A lof of that comes from small towns like mine where the money should stay and support our local community.

      All the money they take in seems to go to beanies and coordinating volunteers.




      12
      1. Re: All the money they take in seems to go to beanies and coordinating volunteers

        The money should stay in the community to grow and even subsidize cleaner foods and educate people on nutrition to prevent cancer in the first place.




        8
      2. JV

        I think you are forgetting the huge amount of money that goes to pay the salaries of the CEO and other top executives of this and other charities. According to one website, if it is to be believed

        “Only 16% or less of all money raised is spent on direct services to cancer victims. Based on 2008 financial documents, the CEO, Donald Thomas, earned through compensation and benefits, $1,054,507. ACS’ Deputy Chief Executive Officer also earned $1,057,507 through compensation and benefits.Aug 16, 2017”
        http://gothamgr.com/how-american-cancer-society-uses-your-money/

        Who knows what levels those salaries are at now..




        6
    2. There was a big write up in our NY paper (Buffalo) this past summer about the endoscope cameras and tubes being contaminated. They admitted it. The ones for the stomach, colonoscopy and the lung ones all contaminated. They had to send letters out to 400 people who were given those endoscopes. Someone did not follow exact procedure in cleaning them. And they ALSO admitted in the paper that they can’t guarantee that they are 100 percent disinfected. They found some mucus in the tubes!!! Oh, and if you are older you will remember Paul Harvey, use to be a radio commentator who talked about “the rest of the story”. Anyway, a few yrs back he was 80 yrs old and in good health. He and his wife were going to Europe for vacation and the doctor urged him to get a colonoscopy. He got it. The doctor punctured his intestine, he got a raging infection and was dead in four days!!! And that’s the rest of the story! I will never get one of those. Too invasive.




      7
  11. Am 63 year old female ( who is writing this comment with left fingers and my good right hand in a cast = broken wrist ) So glad you addressed this issue!!!Q!!!!!! Saw awhile back where D. Susan love , breast cancer doctor started to question mammogram screening . if not mistaken people were agaist at this .Started to make me question this topic . very revealing .

    Also have chronic lyme disease which i finally figured out what was wrong with me after years of listening to conventional doctors . We must realize there is big money in being sick . it is your life and you must advocate for yourself . IT is still ingrained in many of us doctors know everything . thank you for your insights into health .




    5
  12. My doctor and my doctor’s medical system, a local hospital, bug me relentlessly to get mammograms. I don’t trust the money behind this.

    Thank you, Dr. Greger, for taking this topic on. I’d like it interspersed with other topics to give myself emotional relief from any deep diving myself.




    7
    1. A heads up for everyone here. Did you know that there is a law in NY state that if you are 70 yrs old and the doctor suggests ANY kind of a test and if you refuse he can call the Senior Care on you, they come to your house to check on you, you refuse to open the door, they can then call the cops to break in so they can “check” on you. It happened to my friend Larry aged 72. He refused to take tests and argued with the doctor who called the S.C. , they came to the house, he said thro the door he was not letting them in. They told him there is a law and they can call the police to break down the door as they were so “concerned” about him. So he let them in. They said they were worried if he had enough food cuz he was on the thin side. So he proudly showed them all the food he had in the cupboards, and in the fridge and freezer which was loaded. He then took them in the cellar and showed them he had food in another fridge. What did they now do? Were they relieved that he had enough food? NO. They now called him a HOARDER and said he had TOO much food!! They hounded him and said he had to get the colonoscopy the doctor ordered or they would send him to a mental institution to check his mind or send him to a nursing home! So he got the test. They now come back once a month to check on him!
      They came by and wanted to make sure he got his blood pressure meds. He said he got them. They did not believe him and they called the drug store in front of him to verify. (he left the pills in the car) They keep hounding him once a month! After he told me that story i got rid of my conventional doctor as he was pushy and i was afraid. Afraid in AMERICA a supposedly free country!! We are not free! I go to my Holistic MD now and is not pushy. I was terrified to continue seeing my conventional doctor after hearing Larry’s story. I don’t know what the law is in other states. Maybe you can find out.




      6
      1. This is what the democratic party wants to happen in all 50 states.
        Democrats want total government power and control over their lives. Just about all democrats believe in total socialism which will allow the government to monitor your health, food, job, location, and all of your internet activity. Big Brother is here…it is called The Democratic Party.




        3
        1. Dr. J. and Marie – I would STILL call my attorney. And I would NEVER let someone in my home whose stated purpose is to “check on” me. Ever. I would speak to them outside on the porch and let them know that I am fine, thank-you-very-much. And even if they did call the police to perform a safety check, I would ask to see the warrant, signed by a Judge, to allow access to my home (after speaking with them outside).
          One is supposedly allowed to refuse medical care. What happened to Marie’s friend, Larry, is outrageous. And if I were him, I, too, would find a different physician.
          If I were Larry I’d get an attorney to write up a cease and desist letter and take whatever steps are next to get these busy-bodies out of my life.

          And, . . oh ya, . . I’ve spent 20 years working in health care. We all want people to be healthy and safe. But I have to admit that i have seen health care “professionals” use their “caring” to push, control, manipulate people who would rather just be left alone.




          0
  13. The gynecologist I saw annually for 12 years routinely ordered a mammogram and breast sonogram, and I obeyed by having the tests. I believed at the time that I was at risk for breast cancer because my mother had a mastectomy which was the normal procedure in the 1960s. I finally listened to a friend who pointed out the radiation exposure wasn’t a good thing. I changed gynecologists with a new (free) health plan in Buenos Aires. My sister went the chemo and radiation route for breast cancer and took tomoxifan.

    I’m 70, enjoying a WFPB diet for several years, and taking complete control of my health.




    12
  14. So, my doctor has listed me as noncompliant because I refused a yearly mammogram. Lot faster for MD to order mammo rather than discuss preventative cancer measures like a plant- based diet.




    17
    1. I’m next for that label. I had always had one every year. This year I delayed for an extra year. The scheduling department calls me relentlessly and when I did not schedule, they warned me that they were going “to tell” my doctor. My doctor’s office called once and then they all gave up.

      Additionally, they sometimes have newbies giving the mammograms and have to do “re-takes” because it didn’t come out right. Grrrrr!!!




      8
      1. I wonder if I’m also “noncompliant?” I discovered that after a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, subsequent mammograms were “diagnostic” and NOT “screening” — though that’s what they are, screening — and diagnostic mammograms are NOT covered by Medicare, but paid out of pocket. $$ I asked my surgeon for evidence of the superior efficacy of post treatment “diagnostic” vs “screening” mammograms — risk vs benefit, effect on overall mortality and quality of life — and she admitted that there was none. So at my request, she wrote me out a prescription for a “screening” mammogram — covered under Medicare. But perhaps also useless.




        0
    2. For prostate cancer screening, it is now optional. Doctors are required to ask but they will only note that you say No.

      For colonoscopy test, there is now an option to only check for blood in the fece. I am lazy to send in and my doctor has not complained so far :)




      1
    3. Said dr would have to actually know something about nutrition and other treatments. It seems interesting the difference some DR’s have after said ailment happens to them or a close relative. Sometimes it changes them, and others it makes them dig their heels deeper. But it changes them.




      1
    4. Be very careful being “non compliant”. If you are over age 70 the doc can call the Senior Care on you. I am now paying cash for a Holistic MD (who charges $50 for 15 minutes) rather than pay $20 copay with my “good” insurance which by the way everything is on record when you pay by insurance. And anyway i only see the holistic doc 2x a yr for a check up and blood pressure meds. So i am paying less cuz my conventional doc had me go there 2x a month and pay $20 which equals over $400 a yr whereas i pay a hundred a yr for the holistic doc. If i need care i can go to Urgent Care, but no more conventional docs. I don’t trust them.




      1
    1. Robert,
      This is the information (from McDougall) that I have been reading and it makes great sense to me. I think that Dr. Greger’s other videos are going to go down this path or at least I hope they do. I can’t remember the exact quote but something like “early detection is really late detection”. Thanks for posting.




      2
  15. Yes, please do these deep dive research. As a herblist all I know is that breast tissue is the most sensitive tissue that can be harmed by radiation in our bodies. Breast self exam finds something like 90% of breast cancers. I have never had a mammogram. I turn 60 this month should I ?




    0
  16. It has been known for many years that the damaging effects of ionizing radiation are cumulative. That is, the damage accumulates getting worse and worse. I have never had a health professional proposing any type of x-ray or scan ask me how many I have already had. X-ray damage accumulates. Since medical professionals seem oblivious to this, we must be on guard to not permit scans and x-rays that are not really essential. Few really are.




    5
    1. What about all of those full body scans that people get at the airport. There are some people that fly all around the world because of their job. What about X-ray technicians? Even though they hide behind a lead shield, I can’t help but think that they are getting zapped a little bit here and there. Or, what about the folks that work at TSA? It wouldn’t surprise me that they are getting residual x-ray exposure despite all of the so-called safety precautions employed by the government.




      2
      1. Yes, i have read that the xrays at the airports are very damaging and a good number of people will get cancer from it in so many yrs. I don’t know about the tech people. I did read that the Back Scatter xrays are the worst.




        0
      2. I’m interested in knowing about airport scanners. I’ve been opting out bit that leaves me being felt up. As a sexual abuse victim, that bothers me, too.




        2
  17. I’ve been a vegetarian all of my adult life and a vegan for several years. I do not have a history of breast cancer in my family, and I breastfed my three children for at least 9 months for each. I see no reason to have my breast squeezed between metal plates and exposed to radiation (I did it once or twice and decided it was nuts). Yet my doctors treat me like a criminal. I asked one once if he felt the need to call the breast police! I pay attention to my body, and when something is wrong, I see a doctor. It’s sad to live in a world that shows no respect for thoughtful independence.




    18
  18. Thank you ALL so much for making these series of EduVideo’s. It is crucial that we in the medical community have a resource that we can direct our patients to, to get a laymans view of this important subject.

    It makes it easier for our patients to make informed decisions with our shared decision making process.

    Happy and healthy New Year!




    7
    1. If your medical practice follows NutritioFact then that’s a practice well worth visiting!… Please let everyone here know which practice you’re involved with and location (I’m hoping it’s in Australia)?




      0
  19. After following your videos closely for two years, reading your book several times and using it as a reference, I would be really happy if you went more in depth with certain subjects. For those of us who have been following you for quite a while very closely, I think that would be more helpful, although people new to your way of eating might prefer more shallow coverage.




    1
  20. I’ve had a few mammograms, a baseline at 40, then one whenever my doctor became exasperated with me. Probably 6 total, and I am now almost 60. What made me angry and caused me to lose faith in the process is that none of the reports told me that I had dense breast tissue and that mammograms were useless in detecting tumors for me. I was assuming that I had a clean bill of health when they put these code words “No overt signs of breast cancer” on the reports.

    That was a betrayal of trust. I would not have pointlessly exposed myself to x-rays five more times. I will not be having any more mammograms. If my insurance and doctor will offer ultrasound or one of the alternatives, maybe, but as far as I am concerned the mammogram money making machine was exposed. I’m happy if some people here feel they were saved by their mammograms, but it is a FACT that inability to read a mammogram is NOT reported to the patient. People tell me there are laws requiring it now, but my last mammogram was two years ago and no one did. Women might ignore symptoms of breast cancer because of a “clean” mammogram that was nothing of the sort, just an unreadable blur.

    Instead of mammograms, I eat a very careful WFPB diet to address my risk factor of dense breast tissue. Had a doctor bothered to share that risk with me earlier, I might have started years earlier. Medical fail.




    17
    1. CT requires that patients be informed about their breast density after a mammogram; I think that is a relatively recent law, adverted for by a breast cancer patient who did not know that her breasts were dense and mammograms not very useful for detecting tumors. I have seen the density report on my results. I ask for the results, report, and a copy of the screening for my own records. As the ads say (though I don’t watch TV): “ask your doctor.” For this information.




      1
  21. I agree with Sherry Lira. I, too, follow your daily dozen diet as well as I can, and I follow Dr. Esselstyn’s no oil diet also. In this video, I was impatient to get to the facts that I thought you were going to deliver, so we could make up our minds about mammograms. And hopefully you will also cover pap smears. At age 66 now, I have never been regular about annual tests. I have postponed my mammogram and pap smear for several years. My cousin did that and four months ago she died of endometrial cancer. Now I want all the facts about the tests.




    1
    1. Interested in pap smear info, too. I was diagnosed with HPV (biopsy done) at at 16. I’m 43 now. In those years I only had 5 pap smears. Nothing showed up again. How often should I be getting pap smears?




      1
  22. I’m so glad you are doing this series. I’ve been really torn about mammograms and feel like I’ve been forced into getting them. My first one was awful. They did something incorrectly, so I was called in to do a second. Not only did they scare me to death, I had to pay out for pocket for their mistake. No one ever talks about the risks and I want to be informed before I keep doing this yearly. I am between plant based and vegan, so my risks should be lower, but I’d still love all the facts and I trust Dr. Gregor more than any of the doctors I’ve seen.




    2
    1. This olive oil controversy is getting really complicated. I hope Dr. Greger will post something soon about current research, not the weak stuff from years ago. The one quibble I have about this web site is that some info is not current and is based on problematic methods. Nutrition research is hard and has a lot of methodological problems, but good, sound stuff is out there if he has the staff to dig it out.




      0
      1. I think he has look for it. Over all he don’t like oils as a crutch, but if you’re using one olive oil is neutral on the body and with only small decrease in vascular impairment. Should cook in high temps with it. Cheers. Too lazy to ding he post for you do your part




        0
    2. They simply summarise what the current research shows rather than express their opinions – which is very professional of them.

      However, they do note when discussing this evidence

      “No RCTs have compared diets including olive oil with low-fat vegetarian or vegan diets, or to Asian diets that typically do not use olive oil, for any health outcomes. Olive oil is similar in energy density to other fats, and although its SFA content (approximately 14%) is lower than that of animal fats (approximately 30% for chicken), it is higher than for most legumes, vegetables, fruits, or grains.”




      3
      1. Yes, thank you TG for the marginal note. The text you quoted puts things in perspective.

        Even if olive oil has some benefits from the real olives where it was extracted from, the amounts of phytochemicals you would get from eating a whole olive dwarfs any camparisment. The benefits these researches are seeing is coming from them comparing data where olive oil substitutes even worse things like butter or where only very small amounts are being used so that the harm is nor registered in studies. But…

        We can be absolutely certain about olive oil being unhealthy because one can expect a certain amount of endothelial dysfunction coming from it’s sheer “oily-ness”! This substance is 100% pure fat something the body would not encounter in natural foods. Even the most oily food that nature produces; nuts, is limited to around 50% fat. Avocado is only 15% fat. Thus remember the fattyness itself does damage to the arteries.

        Sometimes I wish researchers would be a little less “professional” in these things and send a clear message. Especially for these names where people go to to hear the truth about food. We need strong opinions about what constitutes food from –NOT FOOD-, the dietary guidelines are equally weak in following the agenda that is laden with compromises towards politics and agricultural business and “science”. I think it was pretty weak for these researchers to just “show the current evidence”, what about the “good news”, we need strong opinions in these things if we want to ever overcome the mainstream dietary voices that say it’s okay to drink our milk and cookies. That’s why Dr. Greger’s traffic light system is much more superior, just tell it like it is. People don’t care about the professional talk, we got other stuff to do.

        Instead of them saying “if you use oil, use olive oil and use it in moderation” They should have said : there is sufficient evidence that moderation does not work, olive oil is not food : it impairs cardiovascular function and promotes obesity, eat unprocessed foods. The end.




        2
        1. I think that is why we see so much health in the Adventists. Their dietary guidelines are as clear as it can get because their God boldly declares “do not eat meat” and local stores do not even sell it, and their scientist teaching them why not to eat it. And what you are left with is the healthiest population in the world.

          Whereas our guidelines are weak, political correct statements, even weak in forbidding the non foods when saying “limit or avoid or moderate something something”.




          0
          1. Netgeogate,

            I believe you are right about the Seventh Day Adventist. But, I would like to add one thing to your comment and that is the Seventh Day Adventist also enjoy the power of the placebo effect. They believe so strongly in what they are doing and what they are eating that their “faith” also gives them good health. When you are surrounded by a lot of people who are your friends who are vegetarian and vegans you can’t help but tap into the power of the placebo effect. The amount of reinforcement they get from each other in the area of nutrition is priceless. All of us who are not Seventh Day Adventists have to go it alone and debate family members, debate neighbors, and co-workers about the “rightness” of not eating meat. It must be fabulous to belong to a social group like the Seventh Day Adventists where everyone is just about on the same page, and when you have church dinners you know you are going to be eating healthy food. Seventh Day Adventists are so lucky to have such a close network of friends who all eat nearly the same way. I have thought on a few occasions to visit my local Seventh Day Adventists Church….but….I always sleep in on Saturday. I am not really an “organized religion” kind of person. But, I might visit them sometime.
            I am sure it would be interesting.




            0
  23. I was recently dismissed by an ob-gyn doc for refusing a routine mammogram because it could endanger my unstable shoulder; because she refused to consider new imaging technologies that would reduce a risk of injury from a standard mammogram; and because I have a background in biostatistics that made me doubt the procedure’s value. She was rude, callous, and dismissive. That practice also had its own little highly profitable mammography operation. It’s about the money, and of course these practices always camouflage their greed with sanctimonious claims about patient welfare/health, blah blah blah.




    9
  24. I am looking forward to more details about mammograms so I can make an informed decision on the need for me to continue these. I have wondered in recent years, if it is truly necessary to have a mammogram every year. I am 61, in great health, and had my first Mammogram at the age of 35 to establish a baseline, since my grandmother and an Aunt had breast cancer in their 40’s. So all these years, an annual mammogram – all normal. I’ve had 2 friends who discovered their own breast cancers just this year even though both had recent normal mammogram results. I definitely wonder if the test risks are greater than the risk of potentially undetected breast cancer? Thank you for doing this series!




    2
  25. Dear Dr Greger and team,
    I was booked to have my first mammogram next week. What is the alternative (in conjunction with manual breast check by GP). Ultrasound?
    Thanks,
    Alison




    0
    1. When i went last summer to get my first and LAST mammogram i wanted the Ultrasound first, but they would NOT allow it!! They said i HAD to have the mammogram first. I will never go again.




      5
    2. Hi, Alison. I am a nutritionist, not a doctor, and am therefore offering this as my personal experience rather than professional advice. I am 53 years old, and have never had a mammogram, nor do I plan to have one. I have, however, had infrared thermal imaging. Some believe this to be safer and more useful than mammography. This article might interest you. My two cents as a woman, take it or leave it.




      6
    3. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on this issue. With mammograms, one potential life saved may occur per 1000 women studied, but for every life potentially saved, around 600 screened women will have false positive readings and need additional mammograms, 85 will have an unnecessary biopsy, and 3-14 will have surgery for a breast cancer that may never have become evident. There is not a great screening tool out there that avoids all these problems. There is not sufficient data for any organization to advise routine screening with ultrasound, MRI, or thermal imaging.

      I’ll add this anecdote: before I changed my diet, my mammograms were always abnormal and required extra imaging. I was told I had fibrocystic change, and that it can difficult to spot cancer in this setting. After changing to a low fat, plant based diet, my fibrocystic change had resolved by exam, and my subsequent mammograms have been normal.

      Here’s a CDC summary of the highly varied guidelines for breast cancer screening among medical organizations. When guidelines vary this much, it’s due to conflict in the science and the close ratio of potential benefit to potential harm. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/breastcancerscreeningguidelines.pdf

      -Dr Anderson, volunteer




      0
  26. Hello. Although I really appreciate your videos in general, I found that this mammogram video really had no solid information on the potential risks or benefits. It would be helpful to mention the risks and benefits of other techniques such as self examination, diet and lifestyle.




    1
    1. I think the list of topics below the video is where the meat of the topic will be.

      Or should I say nutrition of the topic.

      “Meat” is the metaphor we use, but it needs an update.




      2
  27. I am in favor of more deep dives. Mammograms are one of the things I need more ammunition on to handle my doctor. She is young, not quite 40. I like that most of the time she tells me that “studies have shown that” whatever she is suggesting is going to be good for me. Unfortunately, I think she’s “drunk the Kool-Aid.” (Bad reference to Jim Jones and his followers who drank the Kool-Aid hr offered and died.) She says she intends to start having a mammogram at age 40 and have one every year after. However, she never gives me any info as to why I might NOT want to have one. She only states that mammograms will find breast cancer sooner, so you have a better chance of surviving it (of course with mastectomies, radiation and chemo, which might really KILL you). So, Dr Greger, go for it! Tell us what you have found reading all the studies you read.




    3
  28. My wife is currently fighting Breast Cancer totally naturally (No Mamo’s or Chemo’s). It’s a tough road because she’s always under pressure from Doctors and friends so there’s always doubt. Micheal your video’s bring clarification and in this case bring credible evidence and hope that she’s on the right path…. Can’t thank you enough for that.
    There are so many subjects (contradictory concerns) out there that really need dissecting just like this to revealed the truth ….. Nobody does this better than you so please, please continue on this path.

    May you live (in good health!) for a 1000 years!!!




    4
    1. Your wife might survive. I have no idea what her diagnosis is, but other than DCIS (where treatment does not appear to statistically change outcome), my rough rule of thumb is that chemotherapy helps about 1 in 10 women who undergo it. About 3 in 10 women die anyway from breast cancer, and about 6 in 10 women would survive just fine after surgery alone. The problem is that currently there is no way to identify which women will be helped by chemotherapy, though genomic testing (which tests the activity or expression of a panel of genes) is beginning to parse this out. Subsequent endocrine therapy depends on the type of cancer — and even there only a fraction of women for whom it’s indicated seem to be helped. But surgery tends to be of most value, if the cancer is an invasive cancer. The devil is in the details.




      0
  29. Please keep doing the “deep dives” especially on cancer & heart disease. As you said, we are misinformed or underinformed so need someone like you to give us the facts. I’m due to get mammogram & now going through your info to try to make the best decision. (Breast cancer has affected 2 generations in my family so I take this very seriously.) Thanks for your work.




    0
    1. I am in my late 60’s. I had one mammogram last summer and never again. I have high blood pressure and take one pill for it and some supplements. I have a friend age 60 whose blood pressure is normally 135/85, but since taking B17 for his prostate cancer his bl pr is now 115/76. I read up on it and it said that B17 lowers the blood pressure. So i ordered a bottle from http://www.Apricotpower.com and got the tablets so i can break them in half. I took half of one a day for a wk now and mine came down to 124/71 from 140/90. I read to be careful if you take bl pr drugs as it may lower it too much. I just check it once a day and am ok so far. If it goes too low then i will cut the drug pill in half. I was thinking that this gets two birds with one stone: lower the bl pr and protect me from cancer.




      1
  30. please continue providing information on these topics and others.

    I have asked doctor after doctor after doctor to please define why certain tests are needed on an annual basis if disease, or suspicion of one, has not presented. There is difficulty getting substantive information off the internet. It seems that the defining information is either Contained Or simply not summarized to help make Intelligent Decisions about our Healthcare choices.

    Please continue. Colonoscopy is another such topic.




    1
  31. I appreciate the deep dive into the topic and look forward to the rest of the videos in the series. I consider myself relatively well-informed, but I don’t know anything about the risks of mammograms. Thank you for creating these videos and providing us with more information so that we can make informed decisions in regards to our health.




    1
  32. Continue with the deep dives please. Great timing on the mammogram topic. I’ve been told that next year I will have to get my first mammogram. I will be 35 and my mother had her first breast cancer diagnosis when she was 44. She recently finished chemo from her second breast cancer diagnosis and now my risk is even higher at 23% that I’ll have cancer by the time I am 80 years old. In the next few months I will be scheduling an ultrasound and some other test that I cannot recall at the moment. I mentioned to my medical provider that I did not want to get mammograms but instead thermography. She said she was ok with that as long as I found a radiologist that would accept that test for breast cancer. She doesn’t know of any radiologist who performs thermography and asked that if I find one to let her know. I need help.




    0
  33. My health insurance mandates a yearly mammogram or else I will be penalized financially. I am over the age of 50. I do not conduct breast exams, I feel my washing the area is good enough…do not want to be constantly thinking about this issue. I have been plant based for many, many years.




    2
  34. Are you kidding! I couldn’t even get through this without getting angry !
    I have had yearly mammograms since I was in my 40’s. I did get breast cancer. It saved my life. If I didn’t get the mammogram it would have gone undetected and would have spread throughout my body. It’s a must for all woman. Breast cancer is an epidemic in our country. We must be screened.
    I have follow ups every six months, alternating between MRI and Mammography with ultrasound.
    Every woman must get her yearly mammograms. It saves lives. I cannot believe it is even an issue!
    Ladies ! Preventative medicine ! Saves lives !




    0
    1. Dd Gran, did you ever wonder WHY breast cancer has become such an epidemic?
      Are you living the cancer prevention lifestyle? Through nutrition to prevent inflammation prior to cancer, meditative exercises to reduce stress, and outdoor (non-manic) exercise?

      Leni.




      1
    2. Actually, I know many women whose breast cancer was detected manually, and they survived just fine. My mother is one: she lived almost 60 years after her first diagnosis. And my sister is another: her very aggressive breast cancer was detected manually 8 months after a “clean mammogram, and she is still with us 20 years later. Nobody can know with certainty that a screening mammogram saved her life. It might be true, but more likely it is not true. Please don’t confuse your personal anecdote with actual scientific evidence.




      1
  35. This comment is off topic, but I would be interested in seeing a video on the pros/cons of colloidal silver. I know some people who are huge proponents, and it did provide immediate relief from some tooth pain I once had. But, I’m skeptical that it’s as wonderful as it has been presented to me as being. What does the real medical literature say?




    0
  36. One thing to remember is that if you have “dense” breast tissue a mammogram may not do you any good. Cancer shows up white so does dense breast tissue. They say it is like: “a polar bear in a snow storm.” My daughter had a mammogram and thermography about 2 weeks before her cancer was discovered by ultrasound. I believe about 40% of women have dense breast tissue. Also there are varying degrees of denseness(?).

    So, ultrasound is a great alternative in the above cases. Some states have laws that say a practitioner must send a letter giving alternative suggestions if the patient has the dense tissue.




    1
    1. Thank you for clarifying what I was trying to say earlier, Dick. I’m so sorry your daughter was an example of the problems of women with dense breast tissue. I am of the polar bear in a snowstorm group myself, though no polar bear that I know of. I think many people here are confused about the issue of Dr. Greger’s video. The issue is that women are not informed of the true benefits and risks of mammograms. The issue is not (at least not directly) whether mammograms are effective. Those of us with dense breast tissue who are sent to annual mammograms are not being treated competently or with informed consent, and we are receiving a test that is medically against our best interests. I do not usually assume a profit motive when medical treatments are recommended to me, but I do in this case. I should have been informed that I had dense breast tissue and that mammograms were not an effective screening test for me. Other options should have been discussed. I am interested in cancer screenings. I want information from my medical providers so I can make decisions on which to have. They aren’t giving that to most of us. That’s the point here.

      It is ok for people to vehemently believe in the life-saving capabilities of mammograms for themselves, but it is not ok to suppress the evidence and information about the benefits and limitations from patients who need to make their own decisions. Like it or not, there is concrete evidence that mammograms are limited. Maybe if providers are more discerning about which screening test is best for each woman, the stats will improve. All the studies I see still lump all women together. We can’t know until we start paying attention to all the facts. Until we are interested in results instead of what is easy to code and send through the insurance claim. Because most of us are treated on the basis of what the insurance company says, not a doctor.




      1
  37. Please keep these videos coming!!! I am currently struggling with how often I should get a mammograph & it’s a battle for information while being pulled by both my family and my doctors.

    Here is a brief background:
    My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 37. My mother survived & is has been cancer free ever since. However, her aunt(my great aunt) died of breast cancer in her early forties. Cancer has killed off every member of my family in one form or another as my mother, a cousin, and myself are all that is left. Of course, no one ever watched their diet or lifestyle which I know put the nail in the coffin for each of them. I am so glad I made the jump to WFPB as of July 2017!

    My doctors informed me that I must start my screenings at the age of 30 since my mother was so young when she was diagnosed. So January 2017 I had my first mammogram & they found something. I went back three days later for an ultrasound & they believed it was just a cystic or bundle of fibers. I went back June 2017 for another ultrasound to see if the spot changed & it had not. Now they want me going in every 6 months for the next few years! I am very concerned about the risks are too high. My mother & doctors both are heavily pushing for these screenings and I’m trying to defend my side all alone. I need unbiased facts to help me take care of me!




    1
    1. In your case, Jennie, you are not considered at “average” risk, which is where most of the conflict in guidelines is found. Your family history would put you in a higher risk category for breast cancer. Your likely benefit from screening mammograms would be higher than the 1 life saved per 1000 screened estimate. While medical organizations vary dramatically in advice to women of “average” risk, for women in your situation, most every organization states evidence supports yearly mammogram and breast MRI starting in the 30s. It would also be helpful to you to know if you carry the BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene, which substantially increase the risk of breast cancer. When a person is of higher risk for a disease, the screening for that disease will have greater benefit. Best luck!
      -Dr Anderson, volunteer




      0
  38. Thanks for asking, Dr. G. YES, please continue the in-depth videos of specific topics. I find that after I watch one of your videos, I look in the Library to see if there are other videos providing additional information. And, many times I also seek information from Dr. Google…..




    0
  39. Hello,
    I have a question about diet in regards to breast cancer. I have been reading about how glucose “feeds” cancer and that Ketogenic diet, which is high in good fats, low/moderate in protein and very low in carbs, works by starving cancer cells. At the same time, WFPB diet includes lots of healthy fruits and berries, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc. which help kill cancer cells but it is high in carbs and carbs provide immediate fuel for cancer cells. What are your thoughts on this? Which diet someone with a history of breast cancer should follow-ketogenic or WFPB? Thank you!




    0
    1. I am going to suggest you go to the Cancer topics and start watching the videos.

      Watch them all.

      It will help you so much.

      The fact that Dr. Ornish is reversing some cancers with WFPB, I would suggest looking at all of the data presented.




      3
    2. There are things you would need to know about Keto, like the fact that Keto plugs your arteries by a 50% increase in a year and things like chicken and eggs and dairy being so closely linked to Cancer and meat affects the gut bacteria, which increases the gut from producing cancer, plus acidic conditions, which acid grows.

      There are things like phytonutrients turning the blood 70% more cancer fighting and causing cancer to not be able to get blood vessels so they can’t grow and spread.

      That being said, both groups would say not to eat sugar itself and to not eat refined carbs, so that might be where you can find common ground between the two camps.




      3
      1. Deb-Thank you for answering my question! Not eating sugar itself and refined carbs – that’s a given! I have been following WFPB diet but after reading the latest research that cancer is caused by defective mitochondria, I started questioning if the amount of carbs I consume on WFPB diet is a good thing, even though they are only good carbs from organic fruits, berries, vegetable, legumes, grains, etc.




        0
    3. Julia – Take a look at this 20 minute video by William Li, M.D., cancer researcher. It is not a complete picture but provides great information.
      https://www.ted.com/talks/william_li

      I, too, have seen information on ketogenic diet for cancer. And although I do not have cancer, I am WFPB and follow a WFPB Keto type of diet – it can be done.

      Extra sugars in the diet are not good for us for all sorts of reasons. And these are mostly from processed food (fruit juice, flour, etc.).

      I appreciate your question. There is much we still don’t know. And that is why I enjoy this site – we are all doing our best to find and share information that works for us.




      0
      1. Ruth-Thank you for your response! I should look into WFPB keto diet. I have seen the video by William Li. When I read about benefits of WFPB diet, it makes perfect sense why it is good for you. However, when I read the latest research on cancer being a metabolic disease, it also makes sense and it appears that one should address the damaged mitochondria by following a ketogenic diet. Glad to hear WFPB keto diet can be done!




        0
    4. Hi Julia- First, there is no long term data showing any lasting health benefits of the ketogenic diet. Weight loss is seen in short term studies, but it’s not even clear if this is sustainable. So the ideas about effects on cancer remain unproven ideas. Further, the ketogenic diet includes may foods that are known carcinogens, including meat, processed meat, butter, other high fat foods, eggs, and milk. On the other hand, a whole food, plant based diet low in salt, sugar, and fat contains foods known to be protective against many types of cancer, and contains no foods considered to be carcinogens. Here is a summary of the dietary features that are known to be protective or not for cancer: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-dietary-factors-affect-breast-cancer-most/

      Good luck to you! Dr Anderson, volunteer




      0
  40. You asked for feedback and I like deep dives, and I also like broad range of topics.

    My feedback will be that I trust you to give information that you find genuinely find interesting.




    1
  41. luckily for Hawaii, in Hawaii, dr mcdougall made a brochure that was made mandatory to be handed out to women in doctors practices since the eighties Hashtag InformedConsent.




    1
  42. Off topic, but Berkelely Wellness published yesterday: ALTERNATIVES TO EATING FISH article which leads us to ask if we should, after all (7 years) eat fish. Excerpts follow. We would very much appreciate an update from Dr. Greger.

    Full article in Berkeley Wellness: http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/nutrition/article/alternatives-eating-fish?s=EFA_180823_AA1&st=email&ap=ed&utm_source=Berkeley+Wellness&utm_campaign=80402a6334-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3ddd6463e7-80402a6334-88538809

    “…If you’re a vegetarian for health rather than ethical reasons, it’s worth noting that a 2015 study in JAMA Internal Medicine reported that pescovegetarians—who eat fish but who are otherwise vegetarians—had a lower risk of colorectal cancer. Pesco­vegetarians were 43 percent less likely to develop the cancer over 7.3 years—a lower risk than vegans or vegetarians overall….

    …Some plant foods—notably flaxseeds, wal­nuts, and soybean and canola oil—contain an omega-3 fat called alpha linolenic acid (ALA). While fish can convert ALA from algae and other sea plants into EPA and DHA, humans can do so only to a very limited degree—less than 1 percent is converted, according to some estimates….

    …Most researchers question whether it’s possible to consume enough ALA to end up with as much EPA and DHA as you’d get by eating fatty fish. That is, ALA can­not replace the omega-3s from fish….


    The science on supplements
    Recent research suggests that the “not con­clusive” disclaimer about the scientific evi­dence for heart benefits from fish oil pills is putting it mildly. Well-designed clinical trials on the supplements have produced mostly inconclusive or disappointing findings, perhaps because the benefits of eating fish may come at least in part from other compo­nents of fish than the omega-3s—which is why we recommend fish.
    Most recently, in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in January 2017, a meta-analysis that included 18 clinical trials, most of which used supplements, found no statistically sig­nificant benefit overall for prevention of coronary artery disease in the general popu­lation. It did find a 15 percent reduction in coronary events, on average, in people at elevated risk because of high LDL (“bad”) cholesterol or high triglycerides…. ( how about mental, and other benefits besides coronary?)

    …These and other recent disappointing findings run counter to early studies with more promising results for fish oil pills. This may be because far more participants at elevated cardiovascular risk are taking “state-of-the-art” medication, such as statins and blood pressure drugs, compared to early studies. Even if omega-3 pills provide ben­efits, these would be hard to detect against the backdrop of the much larger benefits of these drugs. That could also make the sup­plements all the more unnecessary….” (Obviously, we have here a carefree attitude towards drugs! GD)




    1
    1. Unfortunately, studies like these don’t take into account important variations in the vegan/near vegan population. WFPB contains multitudes of interpretations. I would like an analysis of the very low fat (10%) McDougall/Esselstyn/Paddison diet group compared to the higher-but-carefully-chosen fat (~20-25%) of the Eat to Live Dr. Fuhrman group. I know Dr. McDougall is very opposed to fish oil supplements. I’ve heard him rant about them. He believes that people can convert sufficient DHA from vegetable foods. Dr. Fuhrman requires daily Omega-3 DHA/EPA supplements, strongly suggesting the algae-derived type. He also requires about 2 ounces of seeds/nuts a day, something Dr. McDougall and Dr. Esselstyn do not allow. None of them allow isolated oils. None of them like the contamination risk of fish.

      If we are going to drill down on whether vegans should add fish to their diet, we need information on what their current fat intake is. Do vegans who take daily DHA/EPA supplements do as well as the fish-eaters?

      I have been in both dietary camps, and I was a pescatarian in my early decades. I’ve settled on Dr. Fuhrman as the one most likely to advise me on a diet that avoids both heart disease and dementia, based on my understanding of the science. My guess is that vegans are healthier with a DHA/EPA supplement, and I did take fish oil for years before the algae based supplements came on the market. For me, it isn’t a gamble any more, since genetic testing shows that I am a poor converter of ALA to DHA. Now that I’m older, I’m probably a non-converter.

      It would be great to have these differences studied.




      1
  43. I am looking forward to the in-depth articles about mammograms. I think going with the in-depth coverage is the way to go here! (I must admit that I always prefer in-depth coverage – really helps me to make an informed decision about complicated, controversial issues).




    0
  44. It’s just surreal how warped the medical system is. I have not been to a doctor in 15 years, and would bet I could heal myself better for most issues. I am grateful for Dr. Gregor for turning the tide in medicine, and for the Internet for making home remedies more accessible.




    1
  45. A year ago I was dx with LCIS. I’m now one of those that’s probably over diagnosed and could end up over treated. It’s created a lot of stress and worry. I have no family hx of breast cancer. But something good came from this dx. My PCP sent me to nutritionfacts.org and told me the body has an ability to heal itself. I’ve been a mostly unprocessed vegan now for 11 months and I’m much more educated about my true risk. My surgeon of course encouraged me to do a prophylactic mastectomy.




    0
  46. Wanted to give the website administrators a heads up – the links in the list of other mammogram videos lead to “Error 404: Page not found”




    0
  47. This is a major health concern for women and their families and I, for one, couldn’t be more thrilled that you are dealing with it. I think interspersing the topic with other health topics is a good idea, so that those not interested don’t get bored but frankly, I am greatly looking forward to the whole series. Thank you!




    2
  48. Please keep these videos coming. I was diagnosed with DCIS in 2016. I was overwhelmed with decisions. I had a biopsy and lumpectomy. If I knew then what I know now I wouldn’t have done either. I got a mammogram Nov 2017 and they want to do another biopsy. I said no way! I feel that getting mammograms every year for the past 12 years (family history) was a huge mistake and contributed to my DCIS. Mammograms are trauma to the breast and the radiation only hurts. I will never have another mammogram again. Just ultrasound, MRI or thermograms (which most insurance companies don’t pay for thermograms) I so respect all of your research. Thank you.




    1
  49. Thank you for this video series. I have been following these and today’s about the risks and benefits was very helpful. I have been subject to unsuccessful mammograms and unnecessary surget / biopsies since my early 20s. Now in 40s reluctant to have any more.




    0
  50. Thank you for your comments. Thank you Dr Greger for covering these complex topics. It is empowering to learn about pros and cons of mamaogram and cancer detection. There is environmental and genetic factor associated with breast cancer. The timing of mammogram and the age of the women and the type of breast are some of the factors that I can deduct from the comments above and the successful and unsuccessful detection. Hopefully by following up coming videos on this topic the take home message for each individuals become clearer.




    0
  51. The mammogram is a cancer causer. Cancer.gov says repeated tests expose you to too much radiation. You chicks have been hornswaggled. You are exposing yourselves to RADIATION to detect a limp. Ever wonder why the rate of breast cancer is rising? Its beaus of the testing. That machine is giving you cancer that you most likely wouldn’t have gotten if you stayed away from the testing.




    1
  52. I just started watching the videos and reading all the info you publish and is very helpfull and very easy to understand !! I really enjoy the deep dives in every topic and thanks for your hard work !! Regards form Mexico !!




    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This