Do Mammograms Hurt?

Do Mammograms Hurt?
4.75 (95%) 32 votes

Excessive breast compression during mammography may not improve image quality and cause unnecessary pain.

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.

False-positive results have been described as “the most frequent harm” associated with mammogram screening, but actually it may be pain. “There is a wide variation both in the reported frequency of pain and in…degree of pain felt by women” during mammograms. But, there may be little doubt that “the majority of women feel some degree of pain during” the procedure. Why? Isn’t it just a type of X-ray?

For those unfamiliar, the breast is sandwiched between two plates, and kind of pancaked down. Instructions are typically like, “Slowly apply compression until the breast feel[s] taut,” with a force not exceeding 20 kilograms. That’s 44 pounds! That’s like the weight of a cinder block—I mean, no wonder some women experience pain!

Studies that have attempted to quantify it are all over the place, with the incidence of pain ranging anywhere from 1% to 93%, depending on how they defined it. The discomfort is enough to keep a proportion of women from not coming back. The typical line you hear is that “Although the compression can [be] uncomfortable and even painful for some women, it only lasts…a few seconds”—a sentiment to which one woman replied, “You tell [the] doctor to come on over [here]…he’s got stuff that can be mashed too, you know…”

“Mammogram compression can cause…bruising, and has led to the rupture of breast implants, cyst[s], and…[blood vessels].” “Women with…dense breasts, are often advised to take [painkillers] or tranquilisers to endure the procedure more comfortably.” Yet, you know, pain is there for a reason. It’s trying to warn us about potential “tissue damage.” There’s at least a theoretical concern that tissue inflammation could wake up dormant tumors, but that’s sheer speculation at this point. Still, I mean, we could try to make them less painful.

The reason they do it is to “reduce breast thickness”—purportedly “decreas[ing] the radiation dose and improv[ing]…image quality.” But when it was put to the test and actually measured, one study found “the radiation dose increased [at higher] compression force[s].” Another study found that about a quarter of women “did not experience a difference in the thickness of their breasts when compression was [eased back a bit],” implying that “more compression was applied than…necessary. …[O]nce minimum thickness is achieved [then] further compression only results in more pain with no benefit to image quality.”

The bottom line is that “pain in mammography is an issue to be taken seriously.” “Recognising this in the tone and content of patient information and advising on ways to deal with it would show greater respect for patients than [just] blanket reassurance[s].” The reason women aren’t more up in arms may be that “the majority of women feel compelled (by fear or duty) to comply…”, but this just helps the medical establishment push the pain issue “to the margins.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: BartekWardziak via iStockPhoto. 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.

False-positive results have been described as “the most frequent harm” associated with mammogram screening, but actually it may be pain. “There is a wide variation both in the reported frequency of pain and in…degree of pain felt by women” during mammograms. But, there may be little doubt that “the majority of women feel some degree of pain during” the procedure. Why? Isn’t it just a type of X-ray?

For those unfamiliar, the breast is sandwiched between two plates, and kind of pancaked down. Instructions are typically like, “Slowly apply compression until the breast feel[s] taut,” with a force not exceeding 20 kilograms. That’s 44 pounds! That’s like the weight of a cinder block—I mean, no wonder some women experience pain!

Studies that have attempted to quantify it are all over the place, with the incidence of pain ranging anywhere from 1% to 93%, depending on how they defined it. The discomfort is enough to keep a proportion of women from not coming back. The typical line you hear is that “Although the compression can [be] uncomfortable and even painful for some women, it only lasts…a few seconds”—a sentiment to which one woman replied, “You tell [the] doctor to come on over [here]…he’s got stuff that can be mashed too, you know…”

“Mammogram compression can cause…bruising, and has led to the rupture of breast implants, cyst[s], and…[blood vessels].” “Women with…dense breasts, are often advised to take [painkillers] or tranquilisers to endure the procedure more comfortably.” Yet, you know, pain is there for a reason. It’s trying to warn us about potential “tissue damage.” There’s at least a theoretical concern that tissue inflammation could wake up dormant tumors, but that’s sheer speculation at this point. Still, I mean, we could try to make them less painful.

The reason they do it is to “reduce breast thickness”—purportedly “decreas[ing] the radiation dose and improv[ing]…image quality.” But when it was put to the test and actually measured, one study found “the radiation dose increased [at higher] compression force[s].” Another study found that about a quarter of women “did not experience a difference in the thickness of their breasts when compression was [eased back a bit],” implying that “more compression was applied than…necessary. …[O]nce minimum thickness is achieved [then] further compression only results in more pain with no benefit to image quality.”

The bottom line is that “pain in mammography is an issue to be taken seriously.” “Recognising this in the tone and content of patient information and advising on ways to deal with it would show greater respect for patients than [just] blanket reassurance[s].” The reason women aren’t more up in arms may be that “the majority of women feel compelled (by fear or duty) to comply…”, but this just helps the medical establishment push the pain issue “to the margins.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: BartekWardziak via iStockPhoto. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

I started talking about false positives. That was the topic of my last video. This is the sixth in a 14-video series on mammograms. If you missed the first five, check them out:

Stay tuned for:

If you can’t wait and want to watch the entire series right now you can stream it for a donation to NutritionFacts.org by going here.

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

117 responses to “Do Mammograms Hurt?

Comment Etiquette

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 health supporters 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. Last year there was a article on the Westonaprice.org about raw milk called ” Shifting the Medical Paradigm with GcMAF and Raw Milk ”
    An interesting article . Cancer is mentioned as well as other health concerns .

    1. Last year there was an article on the CDC website about raw milk. An interesting article

      “Raw milk and products made from it, however, can pose severe health risks, including death.”
      https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.html

      There was also an article on the science based medicine website about the Weston Price Foundation. An interesting article.

      “I knew it was not a trustworthy source of medical information, but I had not imagined just how atrocious it really was. After spending some time on the website, I realized that it is not just a cornucopia of false information about dentistry and nutrition, but is full of anti-vaccine propaganda and bizarre and dangerous health advice that could result in serious harm to patients.”
      https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling-legacy/

      1. According to the CDC there were 3330 deaths from 1998 to 2008 from produce . From the same time frame poultry 2780 ,pork 820 , fish 710 , beef 550 and raw milk 0 . According to JAMA there were 1,060,000 from prescription drugs .
        Where I live raw milk is illegal , you can not sell it or have cow shares and get around the law that way . Farmers drink their own raw milk at least the last time it was checked about 89 % did even though that too is border line illegal . Every milk truck driver that picks up raw milk at the farm is trained at the university for a few days to get his license to pick milk up so he can detect problems with the milk . . Every truck driver must sample the milk for off flavors before he pumps it into his truck . I’ve asked the university numerous times how many truck drivers get sick from this constant raw milk . This normally starts a heated discussion ……the answer none that we know of .
        As far as weston price site you would have to investigate further before accepting their opinion on anything just like any site .

            1. You are attacking the little people who eat animal foods for health reason or they have to eat fast to go back to work such as picking kale for you to eat.

              It’s like you are accusing the car drivers of polluting and destroying the environment,

        1. Yes, Buster, none that you say you know of. However, you are employed to promote dairy products online in fora like this. You would say that. Does the company that employs you, sell raw milk or raw milk products?

          However, the CDC notes

          “Raw milk is milk from that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. It can come from any animal. Raw milk can carry dangerous germs, such as Brucella, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella, which can pose serious health risks to you and your family.”
          https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html

          I am from the UK originally and there the Food Standards Agency has observed

          “The potential risks associated with the consumption of raw drinking milk have long been recognised. Between 1912 and 1937, about 65,000 deaths
          from bovine tuberculosis were reported in England and Wales. In addition, raw milk was associated with many cases of brucellosis, food poisoning and
          other diseases. The introduction of bovine tuberculosis eradication programmes between the 1950s and 1980s and the widespread adoption of
          pasteurisation has meant that milkborne disease is now relatively rare.”
          https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa120305.pdf

          But hey what are a few deaths when compared to dairy company profits or fashionable food fads?

          1. Tg
            1912 is a long time ago , food safety has come a long way since then , some farmers are using a app you can get for your cell phone to check if milk is safe or not . Netflix has a good series of shows called Rotten and details many foods .

            1. Yes, Buster food safety has come a long way since 1912 (those 65,000 deaths actually occurred after 1912 though)

              However, as far as I know, food safety authorities everywhere still advise against raw milk consumption, for safety reasons.

              Furthermore, as the Harvard study I linked to previously suggested, not eating dairy (fats) and eating fruits, vegetables and whole grains instead drops cardiovascular disease risk by a whopping 28%.

              My maths skills are pretty rudimentary but to turn that around, people eating vegetables/fruits/whole grains in place of dairy fats have only 72% of the CVD risk of the people eating dairy. Since 28 is 39% of 72, this implies that people eating dairy instead have a 39% increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared to people eating vegetables/fruits/wholegrains in its place. I can’t really see why anyone would want to drink milk, raw or otherwise.

              1. Yes TG I am well aware of your selective research , which only proves you know how to get your vegan propaganda out .
                Why did Esselstyn use milk and yogurt to reverse heart disease and Ornish too?

      2. This is completely misleading and false. As usual, TG will quote from the CDC like they are God to him. First of all. raw milk is consumed very safely in the U.S. frequently a few decades ago and in Europe today. His Queen drinks raw milk everyday and lived a long life.

        Secondly, there is a new “raw” that is not completely raw such as pasteurizing milk at low temp for a longer duration of time and not homogenizing it. You can buy such milk at Whole Foods.

        Raw milk preserves all the nutrients and enzymes and the beneficial part of milk. Consuming milk the wrong way such as the heavily processed 2% or low fat does more harm. That’s what had happened with the fake “cholesterol” theory.

        1. Jerry

          You continue to confuse fantasy with real life.

          “When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.”
          https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

          All you ever do is mindlessly repeat idiotic claims made by cranks on the internet. The evidence clearly shows that your beliefs are wrong but that does not stop you for one second. Look at these idiotic assertions you make about cholesterol. Apart from people who wear tinfoil hats and those who prey on the ignorant and the gullible,. every credible health authority and institution around the world recognises that high blood cholesterol is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease
          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-do-we-know-that-cholesterol-causes-heart-disease/
          We even know some of the mechanisms by which high cholesterol damages health
          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/cholesterol-crystals-may-tear-though-our-artery-lining/

          Then there is cancer.
          ‘In this large prospective study, we found that total cholesterol was associated with the risk of several different cancers, although these relationships differed markedly by cancer site.”
          http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/jco.2010.31.5200

          An old high school friend of mine died of pancreatic cancer towards the end of last year and there even dietary cholesterol appears to be a risk factor
          “cholesterol intake level was significantly associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer [summary relative risk (RR) = 1.371, 95%CI = 1.155–1.627, I2 = 58.2%], especially in America [summary RR = 1.302, 95%CI = 1.090–1.556]. A linear dose-response relation was attested that the risk of pancreatic cancer rises by 8% with 100 mg/day of cholesterol intake. [summary RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.04–1.13].”
          https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08243

          What is more, and this may be particularly relevant to you Jerry, there appears to be an association between high cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease
          “Consistent associations between high midlife TC and increased risk of AD, and high midlife TC and increased risk of any dementia were found.”
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448847

      3. Thanks TG
        BTW the very same website and same author has a critique on Dr Greger . (sciencebasedmedicine.org)
        I also would point out that I was not promoting anything and I was on subject at hand , testing for cancer .
        Nagalase testing if it works would be much less invasive than the current mammograms .
        But why look into that , it is much more fun to throw insults and belittle me .
        If there is a requirement to have a job that is pre-approved vegan in order to comment here why not publish that ?
        I guess my foster child who we had for 13 years and struggled everyday of her life to finish high school and finally found a low paying job at a fast food joint to support herself and make a life for herself would not be welcome on here as well , since she would be seen as a promoter of said fast foods ?

        1. Buster

          Your comments are almost all aimed at promoting dairy consumption and attacking competing products such as soy, and belittling people such as Dr Greger who point out the problems with dairy consumption. And of course your post was promoting dairy products – how dumb do you think people are?

          This is not surprising. It is what you are employed to do after all. However, it is a bit rich of you to play the victim. You come here for a commercial purpose and you have attacked people who don’t share your views. It is only fair that people should be allowed to criticise you (and your motives) in turn, including the way you ignore inconvenient evidence and always interpret studies in a way that favours dairy.

          Clearly you are allowed to post here – and you do so on a regular basis. And I have never called for your banning (or Jerry’s for that matter). Your complaint about this makes absolutely no sense.

          However, you shouldn’t complain when people point out the omissions and flaws in your claims. You are quite happy to raise criticisms of others and of the videos/blogs posted here – but it’s a two-way street. If you are going to dish it out, you have to expect it will be dished out to you in return.

        2. Further to this Buster, your suggestion that people visit the appallingly nutty website of the Weston Price Foundation (WPF) because it has an article about a possible cancer treatment was clearly aimed at promoting te sale of raw milk. You have still not told us if the company that employs you sells raw milk or raw milk products.

          The WPF promotes all sorts of quack cures, conspiracy theories and unscientific beliefs about food and diet including quack “cures” for cancer. This story you referred us to, appears to be more of the same. The article about GcMAF and raw milk failed to mention that the authors of this approach had had their article about this therapy (supposedly it is effective against HIV and autism as well as cancer) retracted because of irregularities including forgery.
          http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/25/paper-about-widely-touted-but-unapproved-cure-for-cancer-autism-retracted/

          it is fairly obvious that your only interest in this dubious WPF article was not the bona fides of Yamamoto or the the scientific validity of his approach, but the fact that the WPF article recommended that people buy raw milk. Promoting false “cures” simply because they encourage people to buy raw milk is not particularly admirable, Buster.

          1. 1. Wilkins T, Sequoia J. Probiotics for gastrointestinal conditions: a summary of the evidence. Am Fam Physician 2017;96(3): 170-178.
            2. Delanghe JR, Speeckaert R, Speeckaert MM. Behind the scenes of vitamin D binding protein: more than vitamin D binding. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;29(5): 773-786.
            3. Chun RF, Liu PT, Modlin RL, Adams JS, Hewison M. Impact of vitamin D on immune function: lessons learned from genome-wide analysis. Front Physiol 2014;5: 151.
            4. Gregory KJ, Zhao B, Bielenberg DR, et al. Vitamin D binding protein-macrophage activating factor directly inhibits proliferation, migration, and uPAR expression of prostate cancer cells. PLoS One 2010;5(10):e13428.
            5. Thyer L, Ward E, Smith R, et al. GC protein-derived macrophage-activating factor decreases alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase levels in advanced cancer patients. Oncoimmunology 2013;2(8): e25769.
            6. Greco M, Mitri MD, Chiriacò F, Leo G, Brienza E, Maffia M. Serum proteomic profile of cutaneous malignant melanoma and relation to cancer progression: association to tumor derived alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase activity. Cancer Lett 2009;283(2): 222-229.
            7. Thyer L, Ward E, Smith R, et al. A novel role for a major component of the vitamin D axis: vitamin D binding protein-derived macrophage activating factor induces human breast cancer cell apoptosis through stimulation of macrophages. Nutrients 2013;5(7): 2577-2589.
            8. Inui T, Kuchiike D, Kubo K, et al. Clinical experience of integrative cancer immunotherapy with GcMAF. Anticancer Res 2013;33(7): 2917-2919.

            1. “Starting around 2008, GcMAF has been promoted as a cure for cancer,[5] HIV,[6] autism[7] and other conditions.[8]

              Three out of four of the original studies authored by Yamamoto (published between 2007 and 2009) were retracted by the scientific journals in which they were published in 2014, officially due to irregularities in the way ethical approval was granted.[6][9][10][11] Retraction reasons also included methodological errors in the studies.[12][13] The integrity of the research, conducted by Nobuto Yamamoto and colleagues, that originally prompted claims regarding cancer and HIV has been questioned.[5][2]

              The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency[8] and Cancer Research UK has warned the public about spurious claims of clinical benefits, misleadingly based on reduced levels of the alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase enzyme (also known as nagalase), whose production might be increased in many cancers.[5]

              In 2014 the Belgian Anticancer Fund has communicated serious concerns about published studies on GcMAF by Yamamoto and colleagues.[2]

              In 2015 the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) closed a factory manufacturing GcMAF for cancer treatment.[14]”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GcMAF

            2. Jerry

              What relevance does your copy/paste dump of article references have to the raw milk claim? Absolutely none, as far as I can tell.

              The only one that mentions GcMAF by name is the last one. And that does not mention magic raw milk yoghurts or kefirs. Instead it discusses

              “First-generation GcMAF. First-generation GcMAF is prepared by artificial enzymatic treatment of non-specific human Gc protein which is purified by vitamin D affinity chromatography. This may be made from pooled serum of many people’s blood consisting of a mixture of Gc protein subtypes.”

              and

              “Second-generation GcMAF. Second-generation GcMAF is prepared by artificial enzymatic treatment of human serum without purification by vitamin D affinity chromatography. GcMAF is made from individual serum samples that are not pooled.”

              I can’t see any justification there for consuming raw milk potions.

          2. The problem with any article or research about nutrition is that it cannot claim to cure any disease, cancer, heart disease, autism, etc. unless the researchers conduct trials and there is no money, no grant, even salary for their job, to support such trial. This is a game that the FDA and Big Pharma are playing so that they have monopoly on drugs. So let say they have drug A with all kind of side effects, they only need to prove that it is better than the placebo, and that’s very subjective. Then when they have drug B, all what they have to do is to prove drug B is not worse than drug A. No matter what the quality of life is, they can claim that the drug can “cure” a disease if it extends life more than doing nothing.

            You will have the same problem with kale if you claim that kale can “cure” any disease. All you can say is that kaje “reduce” the risk of CHD and cancer.

          3. TG
            It is against the law to sell raw milk where we live , the dairy does not sell raw milk . Is Weston Price nutty or do they just disagree with you?
            Dr Hall did a critical review of the site , just like she did of this site and Esselstyne and Campbell . Nobody came out a clear winner there .

            1. Buster

              I think that most serious scientists, researchers and medical professionals consider the Weston Price Foundation to be seriously nutty – and for very good reasons
              https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation

              And yes Harriet Hall is a a militant omnivore and anti-vegetarian. The point is that even she considers the WPF crowd to be a source of dangerous advice on nutrition and health.

              However, Hall’s views on vegetarianism are not science based. They appear to be driven instead by personal prejudice. The premier US statements of the evidence on nutritional science and health are the scientific report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and the US Dietary Guidelines 2015-20 which followed it. They identify a healthy vegetarian eating pattern as one of the dietary patterns shown to be healthful and state “This Pattern can be vegan if all dairy choices are comprised of fortified soy beverages (soymilk) or other plant-based dairy substitutes”
              https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-5/

              Hall’s views on this matter are therefore not consistent with what the latest science shows. But, let me repeat, even she states that the WPF’s nutritional and health recommendations and views are completely unreliable and in fact dangerous

              1. Say Tg Do you think they used Campbells book the China study to help draw their conclusions ?
                Since his book has a number of serious flaws especially when it comes to dairy .

    2. I know we all go off track at times and this place is not strict about it. Most admit to it when they do it as well.
      But……our priority here is not milk. What does this have to do with pain with mammograms?
      Is this a milk blog? Does every threat regardless of content have to have a reference to the good qualities of milk supposed in it?

      1. With that in mind…please show how that reference has any relevance to pain with mammograms?

        Perhaps it does it seems not to but never say never..produce something to show how?

      2. Ron in New Mexico
        I think if you read the article you would then make the connection . You can also look up Dr Nobuto Yamamoko , a researcher in GcMAF .

        1. The specific in the video which is quite specific has one focus…pain with the procedure of mammogram.

          The earth does not revolve around a dairy filled sun. The stars are not specks of dairy. This is in no way related to anything about dairy.
          It is about the pain of mammograms and that women need to know of that.
          The video does not even mention a word about cancer. It is all about the medical procedure.

          1. Ron
            this is series about testing for breast cancer , someone doing research of breast cancer is very much in the context of comment section.
            What reason did you think people were going through mammograms for ?

            1. Very many videos address potential causes and treatments, to extend into cancer and all the rest.

              This is simply not about that, the rest of the series may be. This is about the specific of the procedure,,causing pain. There is one mention of the word cancer but only of the question may cancer be spread by disruption within the context of handling…which is inconclusive.

              This video is not about cancer. I may do a video on blood drawing and blood drawing may be done for various causes . All the causes then are not included in a discussion on a blood drawing video.
              This is about the specific procedure of a mammogram not potential causes of breast cancer nor treatments. Not at all.
              If one wants to discuss that there are certainly places here that approximate that. This is not one of them.
              Not at all. Not even the slightest bit.

            2. Um, no Buster. The article is about pain and mammograms. We don’t need a GUY, or anybody really, deciding to change the subject form something that matters to a lot of women.

              If there were an article in the future about a routine and perhaps unnecessary test involving pressing male anatomy in a vice grip, you wouldn’t be excited to see the first comment be a woman commenting on the health benefits of strawberries. Please try to be a bit more considerate in the best place and way to advocate your views.

              1. Where’s the video for penilograms? Gotta be some bucks in those….

                And I’d agree…quit hijacking the commentary all the time…I wanna hear about boobs. LOL.

              2. Well this guy has a mother and a mother inlaw and 2 girls and sisters and grandmother in laws as well , and I most certainly was on subject as there might be an easier test to detect cancer .

              3. CG, OK while Buster post is slightly off topic if you want to call it, it’s related to preventing breast cancer in the first place. At least, it is very informative and it reminds me of the GcMAF theory that I read about and put it on my back burner a while ago. Before we can claim that GcMAF can cure cancer, at least it is a good probiotics, something that is useful for the immune system. And the theory is that the GcMAF protein binds to Vitamin D, making it more potent. And you know that vitamin D fights cancer among other things.

                1. This guy is a specialist at digging dirt on anything that he doesn’t like to hear. Unbelievable.

                  Of course if a FDA drug that is developed by an U.S. hospital like the Mayo Clinic or Harvard, etc, and the clinical studies are performed there then there is no conflict of interest. How many FDA drugs were developed by U.S. medical institutions?

                  This guy is unbelievable. He would do anything to advance his twisted belief. It would be lucky if he only hurts himself in his life. Unbelievable.

                  1. Yes, being gullible and believing all sorts of self-serving claims by people profiting from the products they promote is so much more rational eh Jerry?. of course we should be cautious and sceptical about drug claims as we should be sceptical about about all health claims. But you seem to want to give a free pass to all sorts of quack cures and alternative health claims. You operate a blatant double standard here.

                    And what FDA drugs are those Jerry? I am not American but to my knowledge does not develop or sell drugs. It is responsible for ensuring drug safety and regulating manufacturing and sale of drugs. It sounds to me that you just parroting the claims of conspiracy nuts

                    1. It is just to show that you are stubborn and obstinate and refuse to learn new things unlike these open minded vegans. And it is to your detriment because you are very sick.

                2. And to give credit to Yamamoto himself:

                  (First they will trash Yamamoto because the clinical studies were not done by an FDA approved institution. Then they will copy the theory and develop their own FDA drug and patent it. It’s like the CDC patented a number of vaccines. Or some Big Pharma in Canada tried to patent curcumin in turmeric and the Indian government fortunately won the lawsuit to stop it. Or people have been making marijuana drugs for decades and they banned it and now Big Pharma will make and patent cannabinoid drugs. What a joke.

                  Btw, GcMAF is so easy to make at home to boost your immune system that Big Pharma is panicking and they shut down by gun force (yes) any doctors who treat patient with GcMAF).

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996516/

                  Discussion
                  In this study, we demonstrated for the first time a cannabinoid system mediated biomolecular mechanism and cellular effect of GcMAF in cultured BMDMs from autistic subjects.

                  Anti-cancer effects of GcMAF have been described since Yamamoto, et al., [41] first demonstrated the vitamin D binding protein macrophage activating effects and the linkage to specific glycosylation of the Gc precursor protein [41]. It has been proposed that GcMAF possesses tumor killing activity through the activation of macrophages [42]. GcMAF-activated macrophages are indeed able to recognize the tumor cell surface abnormalities through a considerable variation of their receptors: in this way, they exert one potent tumoricidal effect [43].

                  Kanda et al., [44] first described another anti-tumor effect of GcMAF related to its inhibition of angiogenesis, presumably mediated through the CD36 receptor, while Solinas et al., [45] observed the non-psychoactive CB2R-binding cannabinoid, CBD also inhibited neoangiogenesis. Similarly, calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3), also exerts anti-angiogenesis effects, creating an interesting potential nexus between vitamin D, GcMAF, and the EC system in the etiology and pathology of numerous immune-mediated disorders, including autism [46,47].

                  1. None of this shows that raw milk is healthy.

                    And as for “trashing” Yamamoto, pointing out the fact that at least three of his papers have been retracted for various irregularities including forgery is considering trashing in crank world is it? How dare I mention inconvenient facts like that. It’s very naughty of me.

                    And none of these studies you quote appear to use raw milk to make GcMAF so how do they justify beliefs about raw milk?

          2. I had a mamogram about five years ago.
            It was sore and uncomfortable during the procedure, like having my breasts in a trouser press. It put me off having another but… thanks to the free breast check service offered to irish women, the incidents of breast cancer in Ireland have dropped significantly in recent years. So I’m thinking it’s worth another few minutes of discomfort, and will book another one soon.

          3. I appreciate this videos on mammogram very much as I can relate to it. I was told to have a mammogram as my annual check up and I asked for sonogram and so they did do the ultrasound and then they made me have the mammogram. They said the mammogram is the gold standard of prevention.

      3. I get so tired of all this drivel by these few men who want to argue. They should start their own blog where they can argue all day long away from those of us who want to read abou MAMMOGRAMS.

    3. That was a very subtle attention grab for your dairy agenda buster *sarcasm*

      Please stay on topic. Mammograms are just as important as your erection for milk products.

    4. Buster, the topic today is the pain that women experience with mammogram. And it’s a significant issue. I’m guessing you’ve never had the experience. Try to exhibit a little sensitivity and stay on this women’s topic. This topic is NOT related to cows milk on any level. And women are not female cows just because we have breasts. Whydon’t you try out a mammogram and see what it feels like. You then might feel more inclined to stay on the topic for today.
      Jeesh!!

    5. Thanks Buster. Ignore all the detractors and continue to post useful info.

      While this is not exactly related to the pain caused by squeezing the breast :) (why my wife never complained when I do this to her :), the WP article is packed with info about GcMAF yogurt and microphage. I read about microphage a long time ago but never make the connection with raw milk. I will consider making yogurt again, especially GcMAF yogurt., something I didn’t do lately because I am busy. Thanks also for the tip for Garden of Life probiotics. That’s the brand of probiotics that I currently use.

      1. “While this is not exactly related to the pain caused by squeezing the breast :) (why my wife never complained when I do this to her :)”

        Your flippant comments are bordering on offensive, Jerry.

        1. Lou, it is appalling ! ! I don’t know why Nutrition Facts doesn’t ban these trolls. The situation has gone on wayyy too long. The forum used to be populated by health/science professionals donating their time to helping to answer questions and comment on the videos and articles. Only a very few remain, and one can see clearly why!

    6. Yamamoto initial finding on GcMAF protein was not done with many trials and then he retired. The FDA made him retract his research papers because he has not done sufficient lab work to prove his theory. But since then, research institutions around the world, notably in Japan, have picked his work and done more researches and trials.

      The same thing happened with stem cell research which Japan is leading, and medical marijuana research which Israel is leading. We are left with our Big Pharma leading the pack while the FDA is helping them stemming all researches that may impact their drug sales.

      http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/35/8/4545.full

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26168499

      For the little people like us, we can buy ingredients off the shelves to make our GcMAF potion. At the very least, it’s a good probiotics which causes no side effect.

      I currently have my yogurt being made in my Instant Pot right as I type this. I have to refresh my yogurt making skill and then I will order the ingredients to make GcMAF yogurt.

      1. The retractions were nothing to do with the FDA Jerry. You just made that up. It was apparently a Belgian organisation which blew the whistle on the claims in those papers.

        The retractions of course included the breast cancer paper which were Buster’s ostensible reason for raising the subject in this thread.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29014/full

        People wanting to check out the hoopla on GcMAF might look at the SNOPES discussion of the controversy
        https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/scientists-questionable-institute-cancer/

        You seem to have a desperate desire to believe all sorts of miracle cure claims …. and you sure don’t want to be distracted by evidence of fraud, dubious practices or quackery.

    1. Ok from the literature presented in the link……
      We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults

      The next paragraph states they examined rates in those with various other ailments.. So there is a contradictory statement made in the first few paragraphs on the link. Healthy peoples do not have the ailments described. One or the other is wrong or misleading.
      So the rest of the study bears careful examination. Peripherally it appears there is error here. A in depth analysis is called for as a red flag is already showing.
      REad it yourself and see if what I say is not true.

      1. This references tobacco but the same principles apply with virtually any substance that may be harmful….

        http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

        Thousands of studies relevant to diet are produced every year. Many are funded by the companies who have interest in the removal of fears associated with their products. Often scientists do a study in one area, and have employment or funding from that same area.
        I am not saying that is necessarily true in this specific but am saying we must examine it completely to determine its validity or lack of.to include sponsorship and any noted conflict of interest

      2. Hi Ron thanks for the reply! I can’t follow you ! I’m just a curious vegan with no experience on reading texts.
        In my thoughts the problem was in the quantity.. If i’m not mistaken they gave 100gr of red meat and there were no association beetween red meat and CHD for example, BUT if they gave idk.. 200gr of red meat maybe we could find a link beetween meat and the disease. The problem is that with the processed meat group they found association even with 50gr.. So my point can’t be true. What i don’t understand is: If those people weren’t healthy… why this study doesn’t show they were getting worse!??

        1. One essential conclusion as stated in the study is this..
          Our findings also identify critical gaps in our understanding of how meat consumption influences cardiometabolic risk, including potential effects of red meat consumption on diabetes mellitus or CHD; of any meat consumption on stroke risk; and of specific ingredients that could be underlying these relationships”.

          This is a study of a group of studies. It could be examined to determine its validity but it would be a rather in depth lengthy endeavor.
          Keep in mind the line abstracted above and bolded states only that there appears to be gaps in understanding. Not saying any specific on this or that.
          It goes on to identify study is needed to qualify as determinant differing types of meat. In other words how we need to do more study with this specific in mind as focus.

          It is more in the line of, as I read it< we need to do more study. I am no qualified expert as well. Dr Greger may be. But we can answer perhaps a question such as basically…what do we make of this?
          I would answer interesting but not definitive. It's intention appears not definitive conclusion as I read it..

          1. I get your point. I noticed that in lots of meta analisys studies the conclusion is not always well define and we need more studies to prove the results.. but it still remain a meta analys study.. it’s a good point after all.

            Different things make me think aboout this study.
            First the number of studies they REALLY studied. I quote “Of 1598 identified articles, 1505 were excluded on the basis of review of the title and abstract ” and than “ For 29 studies, authors were contacted to request missing data or clarify meat definitions used; sufficient responses were received for 23 of 29 studies to characterize the exposure or missing data ” .. so they studied 20 text not 1598.

            And i have more.. They say in the paragraf: RESULT
            I quote ” Approximately half of the studies included variables that could be confounders or intermediates (eg, lipid levels) in addition to sociodemographic and/or dietary variables.

            And.. Last but not least “ Four studies reported how red versus processed meat intake was associated with other dietary and lifestyle factors at baseline.7,16,18 Relationships with these other risk factors were similar for red versus processed meat. For example, higher consumption of both red and processed meat tended to be similarly associated with current smoking, higher body mass index, family history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, higher education and income level, and higher intake of total energy, total fat, saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats, dietary cholesterol, and protein. In addition, red and processed meat consumption levels were similarly associated with less physical activity, multivitamin use, prevalence of high cholesterol, glycemic load, and intake of carbohydrate, fiber, and magnesium. ”

            I mean.. not a life goal after all.. I still cant understand why those result tho.. it bothers me. And im not qualified to really and deeply understand if what a said above it’s a real thing or not.

            1. Who established their determination that lunch meats cause cancer by a similar study of many other studies. So they issued a finding. Scientifically I forget the actual numbers and who did the qualification, but I do recall they were many and those doing the qualifying were the best in their field. By my read this says basically as per red meat the jury is still out so at present no it does not. Was this study of other studies enough to qualify all other diseases…again I have not put in the work but it seems probably not. What is said can always be categorized in the not enough is known category. Which as far a food is concerned is always a no until proven other wise considered safe until proven otherwise. The opposite of drug testing actually.
              So as it stands now as a food requires a general lower standard to determine safety we can say no it does not cause these other diseases.
              The number of actual studies is really really diminished as per your comment.
              I feel the WHO determination was against significant pressure and do not feel the associations mentioned such as peoples more likely to be smoking and eat lunch meat override the prior findings.

              If I was very concerned I would reread the WHO determination and other associations determinations which arrived at the same answer as regards lunch meat. But as I know their science was solid I am not concerned about that finding.. If I find WHO is retracting their determination of course that proves the whole playing field has changed.

              This all just as I personally read it.Others better qualified may have more to add or detract. You are the final arbitrator as some on both sides but mainly meat and dairy have agenda. They will voice that here as well as elsewhere. .

              1. My apologizes to others for deviating from this important topic. It seemed a honest heartfelt question which is why I responded.
                The only explaination I can see for not administrating pain meds and developing machines and techniques that do not cause so much trauma and pain would be…docs are not taking this pain and discomfort seriously.
                Kudos to Dr Greger and the various responders on this thread who have chimed in.
                Honestly it is the first I really have heard about it and I suspect I am not alone in that amongst men..So this is a education..thanks.

          1. Jeirry

            The ones who produced these reports were academics at leading universities. Anybody can check this by actually reading the reports.

            The only people who claim otherwise are con artists – sorry, internet health entrepeneurs – selling stuff to the gullible, and highly vocal cranks like yourself

              1. Quite correct Jerry. They aren’t nutjobs who refuse to believe the evidence from a wide range of scientific studies concerning the effects of drugs.

                That’s your criticism? PhDs and other experts at universities are not anti-statin cranks? They can’t be trusted because they don’t wear tinfoil hats?

                In what absurd universe would anybody even begin to consider that this is a ‘criticism’?

                Is there no alternative health claim that is too obviously false, too obviously, ridiculous or too crazy for you to believe?

    2. StefanLoda – I noticed the article you linked to was published in submitted for publication in 2009 and accepted and published in 2010. We are now 8 years later. Since the publication of that article the World Health Organization has stated that processed meat is a carcinogen and red meat a probably carcinogen. One can read about it here:
      https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html

      The science continues to move forward.

    3. StefanLoda – Yes, you are off topic. And you posted the same link and question on the previous video as well. The topic today is pain with mammogram which is an important topic for the women on this site. It would be great if you could respect that.
      If you want to find out more about the topic that you submitted your link and question about, please read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and his son Tom Campbell,M.D. That book will answer more of your questions than anyone can answer here.

      Now – back to the topic at hand please!

    4. Srefano

      It is not really surprising.

      Studies like this are sensitive to the choice of replacement nutrients. In other words, if people who do not eat red meat instead eat white meat or cheese or refined carbohydrates or other foods which are also risk factors for heart disease, then you would not expect to see any increased risk from red meat consumption. We see this with similar review of saturated fat consumption which have similar findings eg
      http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/

      To truly research whether red meat consumption is a risk factor fr her disease, you would have to compare people eating red meat with people ho eat eg whole grains, legumes, fruit and vegetables in place of red meat. However, it does appear that processed meat is particularly dangerous. this review concluded
      “The overall findings suggest that neither unprocessed red nor processed meat consumption is beneficial for cardiometabolic health, and that clinical and public health guidance should especially prioritize reducing processed meat consumption.”
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483430/

      However, we should also remember that the World Health Organization has classed red meat as a Group 2A carcinogen (processed meat is a Group 1 carcinogen)
      https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

  2. I was recently made aware of a polymorphism in the PEMT gene that affects how much choline one needs. If you have this and you are a post menopausal woman you may need 450 mg of choline a day or you can get fatty liver. That’s over 4 cups of broccoli a day (or 4 eggs). Men and pregnant women may need more. This is a fairly common polymorphism. I intend to supplement with PC but I don’t know how that affects TMAO.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1574369/#!po=23.4375

  3. I hope that will also address 2 additional questions about this subject:
    (1) what is the likelihood that routine screening using could CONTRIBUTE to breast cancer?
    (2) is thermography, which is non-invasive, an adequate way to screen for inflammation that COULD be associated with many disease processes when coupled with appropriate counseling? This is something those of us in Alternative circles do.

    1. Leslie

      Even radiologists appear to accept that mammograms increase cancer risk in some women
      “The results showed that among all high-risk women in the study, average increased risk of breast cancer due to low-dose radiation exposure was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation. High-risk women exposed before age 20 or with five or more exposures were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.”
      https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/news/target.cfm?id=401

      However, thermograms appear to be less effective than mammograms
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5040931/

  4. What strange responses to the video on painful mammograms. I don’t see the connection. I wanted to say I am a 75 year old woman and I wish I’d known many years ago what Dr. G has told us in this series on mammograms. I’d never have chosen to have the tests. I was lucky and never had false positive but I did get called back a couple of times to repeat some views. I apparently had calcium deposits in my breast tissue….they showed up as sparkles all over the place. I wonder if they were actually bits of plaque in the tiny blood vessels… in other words… early signs of potential cardio-vascular disease. My earliest mammograms were excruciating but I think they learned to use less pressure over the years as the later ones were less painful. I know women who had false positives though and went through horrible needle biopsy tests without anesthesia… it was barbaric. The doctor’s reasoning always being… it only hurts for a few seconds. The psychological ramifications were huge for both those women.

    1. Just as a outsider.

      It seems strange we give pain medications for all sorts of minor procedures but in this which has been described to having a cinder block put upon ones breast..such is rarely a suggestion.
      The only contradiction to adminstration of pain medication in a painful procedure is in the assessment phase of treatment when a issue of cognition is the cause, as in a head injury and like incidents. WE can not administer pain meds as it may affect the determination of loss of cognitive function. This makes no sense to me.

    2. Some facilities use a thin pad on the lower glass that reduces the pain. The technician told me that she thinks it alleviates the skin stretching that occurs when the breast is sticking to glass while being crushed. This is simple and cheap, yet when I asked another facility why they did not use it, they were very dismissive about the pain. I have large dense breasts and mammograms are excruciating. Doctors are very impatient about any discussion of pain from mammograms.

  5. Mammograms are indeed uncomfortable. I haven’t had one in over 20 years.
    I also haven’t had the dreaded pelvic exam either. Even worse than mammograms.
    So far so good!
    Any evidence of false positives in pelvic screening Dr G?

  6. This particular article is so validating, thank you for publishing it. So many women don’t talk openly about the pain, and the literature that says “you may experience discomfort” leaves us unprepared. The experience can be traumatic, causes some women to pass out from the pain, and many to feel powerless and unheard when we tell the tech to stop.

  7. Preventative medicine does not enhance well-being. It preys on fear. If the food supply was free of additives, pesticides, we would all live a healthy life. The practice of medicine is all about fear and money. Get mammograms done …. and expose yourself to radiation – does that make sense? Where is the prevention here? Talk about going down the luge at your “informed” risk.

    I can tell you that my annual visit to the doctor makes me depressed and neurotic. I hear do this test, do that test, you don’t know if you have a cancer – at your age, you need this done, like a necessity akin to changing the oil in my car … Yes doctors, I know, my engine is aging and you have no spare parts for it….

    I had a piece of glass in my hand that had to be removed (neon tube broke and fractured) and it cost me $900.00 dollars out of pocket for a 10 minute procedure. The medical establishment has some merits but it has no right to practice medicine with fear and extortionate costs. I wonder whether doctors sleep well at night :)

    1. Jenny,
      Your comment about annual checkups reminded me of this video by Dr Greger in which no benefits were found in them.
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-it-worth-getting-annual-health-check-ups/
      I haven’t had an annual checkup in years. If I feel sick, I go to my acupuncturist who has always been able to make me better. (She is a full MD in China).

      To stay on topic I have always heard that mammograms were painful, so I have never had one. I am very sensitive to pain. The one time I had pain in my breast I went to my acupuncturist and with needles, herbs and massage the pain was gone. That was probably 5 – 7 years ago.

  8. Really, guys it’s women who have to suffer through the pain of having the equivalent of a 40 lb. weight on their breast as a check for cancer–so lets stick to this topic please! There are lots of young women who have no idea what they’re in for and maybe if we band together some inventors will devote the time and money to develop a machine that removes the pain. mammograms are painful and if everyone had to experience it more attention might be devoted to finding a machine that was pain free! Since it is so painful, I don’t go every year as was recommended at one time–instead I do it every 2 and a half years. And I am always on the lookout for news of new machine that reduce the discomfort.

    1. Barbara, I think Jerry, et. al. are trolls of the paid variety. It’s their job, so to speak, to disrupt the conversation and insert their paid agendas…

      1. Buster has previously told us that he is employed to promote dairy products in online communities like this. Jerry on the other hand appears to be sincere but quite delusional and totally obsessive about promoting some of his very strange beliefs

        1. TG – Thanks Tom for always standing up for this site.
          I wish Dr. Greger cared as much and would deal with this. Clearly its disturbing to many who like to have this site as a safe and educational place to have discussions about WFPB eating-lifestyle.

  9. I have a theory that the women who would be the ones who would be up in arms, already left the process and yelled at their doctors enough to demand an ultrasound or are like me and opted out entirely.

  10. Pain is very much different from discomfort. The pelvic exam, like the prostrate exam, is uncomfortable, but not painful, unless there is some inflammation in the area. The mammogram, on the other hand, is painful. I have dense breasts and cysts and my eyes fill with tears during the procedure. I am not a sissy, I hate painkillers and have above average tolerance for pain. I am pretty sure that if men had to have a procedure similar to a mammogram during their prostate exam, the industry would have come up with a much better alternative years ago.

    I have heard there is a new generation of mammogram equipment that applies less pressure on the breasts, thus less painful but several insurance companies do not cover the higher cost (mine included). However, they gladly pay for Viagra pills. I am not a bitter feminist; I just do not accept the double standard. For instance, there are several campaigns to raise money for breast cancer studies and cure. I have never heard of prostate cancer marathon or campaign. Why not? Because there is no shortage of money for it.

    1. Carolia

      You wrote ” For instance, there are several campaigns to raise money for breast cancer studies and cure. I have never heard of prostate cancer marathon or campaign. Why not? Because there is no shortage of money for it”

      Really? Do you have any evidence for this? My understanding is that breast cancer gets far more money than prostate cancer . But people seldom mention this because it would be politically incorrect to do so. There are no prostate cancer marathons or campaign because they aren’t fashionable and men would rather really not talk about it anyway.

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/

  11. JV, Barbara, et. al., yes, I agree. This is clearly a topic that women should feel comfortable weighing in on. And instead Jerry Lewis, Buster, et. al., hijack the conversation to talk about their particular topics like cows milk – which is NOT related to the breast pain women experience with mammogram. It’s really quite insensitive on their part and insulting.

      1. Susan – ” . . and its insulting that NF lets them get away with it.” I SO agree. And this goes on and on and on. And what ends up happening is that the discussions that the rest of us would like to have gets usurped by the Jerry Lewis – Buster trolling.
        NF is going to lose its following………..and I’m one that is tuning in less and less. I just don’t bother to try to have a legitimate discussion anymore because of the consistent verbal pushing and bullying of the conversation. I notice that others who used to post here are long gone.

        what a shame.

  12. Yes, I agree it would be good to stick to the topic. I always let the the technician press harder and harder during mammograms till it’s almost unbearable because I was under the impression that this would lead to a more accurate result. Lately I have read that too much pressure could not only damage the breast but even potentially cause a tumor to rupture and spread, though I have no idea whether or not this is true. Maybe Dr. Greger will address this.

  13. Thank you, Dr. Greger, for your willingness to acknowledge the perception of pain among women who undergo mammograms. Prior to a lumpectomy for an invasive ductal carcinoma, I had to undergo a hooked wire localization procedure so the radiologist could locate two titanium clips that had been placed during a biopsy. He did a mammogram initially to locate the clips and then a follow-up mammogram to verify the correct positioning of the hook wire. Pain was very much a part of each mammogram since scar tissue was being compressed.

  14. Will the mammogram machine find a place in the museum of dubious medical devices? As doubts about its value continue to gather, it seems very possible that one day we will look back and marvel at our misplaced faith in this expensive and unpleasant ritual.

  15. Though I’d post this from the magazine Healthy women…
    “By Arpana M. Naik, MD
    Assistant Professor of Surgery Oregon Health & Science University Portland, OR

    Q: I had my yearly mammography yesterday and went to a different facility than I’ve used in the past. I have always experienced pain, but this time there was only a slight pinch. I wonder if it was done properly. Can you explain why there was no pain?
    First, let me congratulate you for getting regular mammograms. As you know, screening mammograms are one of the best ways to insure that any cancer is caught early enough to insure a good outcome. In fact, a woman whose breast cancer is detected through screening alone is, on average, 50 percent less likely to die from the disease.
    Now, as for the pain you typically experienced. There is a lot of anecdotal discussion about pain during breast imaging. However, researchers find that few women feel actual pain. One study published in 1988 in the Archives of Internal Medicine surveyed 1,847 women at seven breast-imaging centers and found that 88 percent experienced either no discomfort or only mild discomfort, and no woman had pain severe enough to keep her from having another mammogram.
    Any discomfort during a traditional mammogram (not an MRI or breast ultrasound) comes when the breast is compressed between the film paddle and a piece of plastic. This flattens out the breast, enabling the technician to film the maximum amount of tissue. But you’re right, it can be uncomfortable.
    The amount of discomfort you feel is likely related to several things, including the skill of the technician and the time of month in your menstrual cycle (if you’re still menstruating). You’ll likely have less discomfort if you schedule your mammogram a week after your period, when your breasts are least tender. You may also have discomfort if you have fibrocystic breast disease, or “lumpy” breasts. Make sure you tell the technician before the scan, so that can be taken into account. If you really do have pain, bad enough to make the experience very unpleasant, you might want to talk to your health care professional about other options, such as MRI or breast ultrasound.
    However, it sounds like, for whatever reason, your problems may be solved. Maybe the imaging center where you had your most recent exam used Mammo-Pads. These soft foam pads create a cushion between your breast and the surfaces of the mammography device without interfering with the x-ray. Studies find that about 74 percent of women experienced a 50 percent decrease in discomfort when using the pads.
    Bottom line: The fact that you felt minimal discomfort during your mammogram in no way reflects on the quality of the image. If there was a problem with the mammogram, your technician or radiologist would have retaken the image. Before you schedule a mammogram, be sure to ask if the mammogram facility is accredited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This means that it meets high professional standards of safety and quality.”

    Just my personal view…it seems to say different things that are surface wise contradictory…..
    The percentage of woman affected is claimed very small…but then it has conflicting percentages as pre remediation of the pain through pads.
    and secondarily
    It by my read has the victim mentality within it…that is blame the victim ..
    A woman on her period is responsible for the pain, and a woman with a particular type of breast is responsible for the pain…..as opposed to the procedure being responsible for the pain…are not those two very common in woman?

    And its conclusion seems to be….pain does not interfere with the image so why the concern?

    Just my read. I am not necessarily firm in that but on a quick read those were my first impressions.

    1. I only ever had one mammogram – never again. Most of my friends who are usually research procedures seem to be under some kind of spell cast by fear. A few have had to go through the worry and trauma of false positives, which is dreadful. When I have refused them emphatically I have been sent to ultrasound, where I have been dealt with very competently. You just have to refuse.

  16. I think we desperately need the moderator to step in here and start removing inappropriate comments or blocking certain contributors. I’m not advocating censorship, and I don’t mind if the topic strays a bit, but every time I go to read or join a discussion these days I find I have to scroll through many screens full of ridiculous off topic arguments that usually involve “Jerry Lewis.” This is ruining the usefulness of this forum.
    As to the topic at hand, I had no idea that mammograms could be so uncomfortable or painful for some woman. My wife never complains about it, but then again she rarely complains about anything. It’s an interesting paradox where we seem to have some schools of thought trying to discourage the use of mammography or narrow the age spectrum for whom it is recommended, and on the other end, we have advocacy for trying to make the procedure more comfortable for women so more of them will be encouraged to have it done. At any rate, if they can it more comfortable for heaven’s sake, they should, and shame on any insurance carrier that won’t pay for the newer technology that helps to do so.

  17. Jaysal – I completely agree with you about the irritation of having to scrolll through numerous, numerous Jerry Lewis, Buster troll arguments just to try to find the discussion at hand today. I have complained to the Admin before but they don’t seem to care. As you note, there is almost no discussion anymore because of the garbage that one has to wade through. It used to be a good site to find like-minded friends and individuals to share tips, techniques, information, etc. It is now dominated by the Jerry Lewis gang. His actions are NOT about discussion. His actions are about disrupting the good flow of this like-minded group.
    NF administrations has said they encourage “vigorous debate”. But that is not what is happening here.

    As for the topic at hand. Yes, mammograms can be quite painful. I’ve had some that are uncomfortable and also some that were on the verge of unbearable depending on how much the tech squeezed the plates. I’m not one to get uptight about procedures in general. But the mammogram now makes me feel very nervous anticipating the upcoming squish-factor.
    I, too, have wondered if the severe pressure could cause tissue damage. It sure feels like it could.
    Men should feel grateful they don’t have to have their tender parts squished in a vice.

  18. Ok I keep trying to post this and I’m not seeing it show up so if I’m simply unable to see my comment, then my apologies for the repetition. But I’m wondering why one of my favorite videos here, and imo, one of the most profound, is no longer on this site? The video I’m referring to is entitled “Inhibiting Platelet Activation with Tomato Seeds.” This is really bothering me. Can someone please explain what happened to the video?

    1. S

      The video (and blog) are still here. It is just that the site’s search software isn’t too hot. You have to go out and Google eg Greger and the name of, or key words from, the video. The same thing happens with some other videos/blogs here.
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/inhibiting-platelet-activation-with-tomato-seeds/

      This is not a problem unique to NutritionFacts. Where I used to work (a large federal government department), the same thing happened. I often couldn’t find a particular piece of information using the department’s website search function but Google always came through.

  19. I had a mammo done at a mobile VA van. The tech didn’t just compress my breasts she crushed them. I’ve had 30 years of mammograms and never had one like this. I have small breasts so size wasn’t a factor. I was concerned about possible tissue damage or irritated tissue spawning a cancer. I had pain for 6 weeks after and declined to have another this year. I complained to the tech’s supervisor but I can tell you, I won’t let another tech compress me so hard if I decide to have another one. There was no excuse for what she did, and there should be better training for these techs.

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This