Do Mammograms Save Lives?

Do Mammograms Save Lives?
4.8 (96.07%) 61 votes

For every life saved by mammography, as many as 2 to 10 women are overdiagnosed, meaning turned into breast cancer patients unnecessarily, along with all the attendant harms of chemo, radiation, or surgery without the benefits.

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.

What was the impact of the 2009 shift in recommendation to delay routine screening until age 50? Ironically, mammography rates of women in their 40s may have actually gone up. The thought is that all the media attention may have just reminded women about it, underscoring the need to better translate “evidence…into practice.”

The new recommendations bring the U.S. closer to European standards: mammograms every few years, starting at age 50. In 2015, the American Cancer Society split the difference, and recommended starting at 45 annually, and then switching to every other year at 55—suggesting this would decrease the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer from 2.7% down to under 2%, based in part on a systematic review performed by the Cochrane collaboration, a highly-respected bastion of evidence-based medicine.

The authors of the Cochrane review, however, wrote in to say they used the wrong number, and that if you look at the studies they considered were “adequately randomized,” there did not appear to be any significant “mortality benefit” from mammograms at all, and that the “data certainly do not support the popular idea that [breast cancer] screening saves lives”—accusing the American Cancer Society of being more of “a political organization with financial ties to…the multi-billion dollar [mammogram] industry.”

Here’s the Cochrane review they’re talking about, which concluded that “[t]he studies which provided the most reliable information [evidently] showed that screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality.” If that’s true, then that changes everything. They conclude that “the time has [therefore] come to re-assess whether [routine mammograms] should be recommended for [women of] any age”—which is what the Swiss Medical Board did. They “were struck by how nonobvious it was that the benefits of mammography screening outweighed the harms.” It’s “easy to promote mammography screening [when] the majority of women believe that it prevents or reduces the risk of getting breast cancer and saves many lives through early detection of aggressive tumors.” I mean, if those beliefs were valid, they’d be all for it. “Unfortunately,” they concluded, “they are not, and [so] believe that women need to be told so. From an ethical perspective, a public health program that does not clearly produce more benefits than harms is hard to justify.” Their report, not surprisingly, “caused an uproar.” Critics argued that “the report unsettled women, but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.”

If you ask women what they perceive to be the benefits of regular mammogram screening, they think it cuts the risk of dying from breast cancer in half. That’s the orange box: saving the lives of about one in 12 women. But, in reality, the numbers appear to look like this. First of all, the risk of dying from breast cancer regardless is smaller than most women think, and the reduction in risk—the differences in size of the orange boxes—is much smaller, maybe only one in a thousand women benefits. But hey, doesn’t saving the life of even one in a thousand women make it all worth it? Imagine if you were in that one in a thousand family whose mom was saved. But, that may not be true.

One in a thousand women screened may not die from breast cancer, but there’s “no evidence to suggest that overall mortality was affected,” which would mean no lives are actually saved. There’s been 10 randomized trials of mammogram screening, and not one has ever showed “an overall mortality benefit.” Wait. How does that make sense? If mammograms prevent one in a thousand women from dying from breast cancer, then the only way no lives are saved is if mammograms ended up somehow leading to the deaths of one in a thousand healthy women, and that’s preposterous, right?

Let me introduce the concept of “overdiagnosis”—the fact that some of the tiny tumors picked up on mammograms may have never progressed, or even disappeared on their own. And so, had they not been picked up, the women would have been none the wiser: would have never been affected by it, or even known they had it. But once you pick up a cancer on a mammogram, you have to treat it, since you don’t know what it’s going to do. But, in some cases, the overdiagnosed cases where it would never hurt you, you’re treating the breast cancer unnecessarily.

How common is that, though? “For every life saved by mammography, [as many as] two to 10 women are overdiagnosed”—meaning turned into breast cancer patients unnecessarily, along with all the attendant harms of chemo, radiation, or surgery without the benefits. Harms can include death. Imagine being in the family whose mom was killed.

The concern is that unnecessary radiation treatments “may kill…as many as” are saved; hence, the no evidence of net mortality benefit. Radiation treatments to the chest increase the risk of dying from heart disease and lung cancer. Now, those may be acceptable risks, if you actually have breast cancer that would otherwise kill you. Treatments that are beneficial for real patients can be lethal for those who never should have been treated in the first place.

Even if mammograms don’t save your life, might they save your breast? I mean, if you catch a tumor early, maybe you can avoid a mastectomy? The opposite may actually be true. The Cochrane researchers explain that that’s why they published their report. They thought it was important for women to know that “screening [may increase] their risk of losing a breast.”

Basically, mammograms have “been promoted to the public with three simple promises that all appear to be wrong:…Screening does not seem to make the women live longer; it [instead may unnecessarily] increase…mastectomies; and cancers are not caught early…” It may take decades for a tumor to grow large enough to be picked up on a mammogram. And, even when they are, they may not grow any further; that’s the concern we’re catching too many. “There is so much overdiagnosis that” if a woman really doesn’t want to become “a breast cancer patient,” maybe they should “avoid [mammogram] screening” altogether. But, if you have breast cancer, don’t you want to know?

“The small probability that a woman may avoid a breast cancer death must be weighed against the more likely scenario that she may have a false-positive…[or] false-negative result…, or most critically, [a] diagnosis and treatment of cancer that would otherwise not have threatened her health or even come to her attention.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: U.S. Department of Defense. 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.

What was the impact of the 2009 shift in recommendation to delay routine screening until age 50? Ironically, mammography rates of women in their 40s may have actually gone up. The thought is that all the media attention may have just reminded women about it, underscoring the need to better translate “evidence…into practice.”

The new recommendations bring the U.S. closer to European standards: mammograms every few years, starting at age 50. In 2015, the American Cancer Society split the difference, and recommended starting at 45 annually, and then switching to every other year at 55—suggesting this would decrease the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer from 2.7% down to under 2%, based in part on a systematic review performed by the Cochrane collaboration, a highly-respected bastion of evidence-based medicine.

The authors of the Cochrane review, however, wrote in to say they used the wrong number, and that if you look at the studies they considered were “adequately randomized,” there did not appear to be any significant “mortality benefit” from mammograms at all, and that the “data certainly do not support the popular idea that [breast cancer] screening saves lives”—accusing the American Cancer Society of being more of “a political organization with financial ties to…the multi-billion dollar [mammogram] industry.”

Here’s the Cochrane review they’re talking about, which concluded that “[t]he studies which provided the most reliable information [evidently] showed that screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality.” If that’s true, then that changes everything. They conclude that “the time has [therefore] come to re-assess whether [routine mammograms] should be recommended for [women of] any age”—which is what the Swiss Medical Board did. They “were struck by how nonobvious it was that the benefits of mammography screening outweighed the harms.” It’s “easy to promote mammography screening [when] the majority of women believe that it prevents or reduces the risk of getting breast cancer and saves many lives through early detection of aggressive tumors.” I mean, if those beliefs were valid, they’d be all for it. “Unfortunately,” they concluded, “they are not, and [so] believe that women need to be told so. From an ethical perspective, a public health program that does not clearly produce more benefits than harms is hard to justify.” Their report, not surprisingly, “caused an uproar.” Critics argued that “the report unsettled women, but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.”

If you ask women what they perceive to be the benefits of regular mammogram screening, they think it cuts the risk of dying from breast cancer in half. That’s the orange box: saving the lives of about one in 12 women. But, in reality, the numbers appear to look like this. First of all, the risk of dying from breast cancer regardless is smaller than most women think, and the reduction in risk—the differences in size of the orange boxes—is much smaller, maybe only one in a thousand women benefits. But hey, doesn’t saving the life of even one in a thousand women make it all worth it? Imagine if you were in that one in a thousand family whose mom was saved. But, that may not be true.

One in a thousand women screened may not die from breast cancer, but there’s “no evidence to suggest that overall mortality was affected,” which would mean no lives are actually saved. There’s been 10 randomized trials of mammogram screening, and not one has ever showed “an overall mortality benefit.” Wait. How does that make sense? If mammograms prevent one in a thousand women from dying from breast cancer, then the only way no lives are saved is if mammograms ended up somehow leading to the deaths of one in a thousand healthy women, and that’s preposterous, right?

Let me introduce the concept of “overdiagnosis”—the fact that some of the tiny tumors picked up on mammograms may have never progressed, or even disappeared on their own. And so, had they not been picked up, the women would have been none the wiser: would have never been affected by it, or even known they had it. But once you pick up a cancer on a mammogram, you have to treat it, since you don’t know what it’s going to do. But, in some cases, the overdiagnosed cases where it would never hurt you, you’re treating the breast cancer unnecessarily.

How common is that, though? “For every life saved by mammography, [as many as] two to 10 women are overdiagnosed”—meaning turned into breast cancer patients unnecessarily, along with all the attendant harms of chemo, radiation, or surgery without the benefits. Harms can include death. Imagine being in the family whose mom was killed.

The concern is that unnecessary radiation treatments “may kill…as many as” are saved; hence, the no evidence of net mortality benefit. Radiation treatments to the chest increase the risk of dying from heart disease and lung cancer. Now, those may be acceptable risks, if you actually have breast cancer that would otherwise kill you. Treatments that are beneficial for real patients can be lethal for those who never should have been treated in the first place.

Even if mammograms don’t save your life, might they save your breast? I mean, if you catch a tumor early, maybe you can avoid a mastectomy? The opposite may actually be true. The Cochrane researchers explain that that’s why they published their report. They thought it was important for women to know that “screening [may increase] their risk of losing a breast.”

Basically, mammograms have “been promoted to the public with three simple promises that all appear to be wrong:…Screening does not seem to make the women live longer; it [instead may unnecessarily] increase…mastectomies; and cancers are not caught early…” It may take decades for a tumor to grow large enough to be picked up on a mammogram. And, even when they are, they may not grow any further; that’s the concern we’re catching too many. “There is so much overdiagnosis that” if a woman really doesn’t want to become “a breast cancer patient,” maybe they should “avoid [mammogram] screening” altogether. But, if you have breast cancer, don’t you want to know?

“The small probability that a woman may avoid a breast cancer death must be weighed against the more likely scenario that she may have a false-positive…[or] false-negative result…, or most critically, [a] diagnosis and treatment of cancer that would otherwise not have threatened her health or even come to her attention.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: U.S. Department of Defense. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

You can check out my Doc Note under the first video in this series to get a sense why I chose to spend so much time on this topic. This is the fourth video in a 14-part series. If you missed the first three, here they are:

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.

175 responses to “Do Mammograms Save Lives?

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. Props to Louise Atkinson for the adaptation of the a few of the cookbook recipes to typical UK ingredient names, measures and cooking instructions. The photos look good too! I often cook in grams instead of cups myself, despite being one of those poor folks still saddled with Imperial measure. It’s just faster and much less mess.

      1. I went to the article – it was comparing the results of full fat milk compared to low fat milk in the diet in terms of cholesterol.

        A quote from the article:
        “The study authors say their findings add weight to the notion that full fat milk is no worse than low fat and may even be healthier.”

        Which doesn’t mean that whole milk is healthy, just “no worse” than low fat.

        To top it all off, right beneath the milk article they published an article on plant based diets lowering cholesterol.

        1. What the article said is that they debunk the notion of low fat is good for you, not to promote or demote milk.

          Full-fat milk is better for the heart because it increases levels of good cholesterol, finds study

          Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5334015/Full-fat-milk-raises-good-cholesterol-levels.html#ixzz55zUTO0un

          Now for further articles on the benefits if fat, look at the other article on ketogenic diet.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/fb-5329875/HOW-DOES-KETO-DIET-HELP-EPILEPSY-PATIENTS.html

          TG cherry picking is to trash the Daily Mail when they talk about something he does not like and praise when they talk about something he likes.

          This cherry picking job seems to be very popular here.

      2. Jerry

        If there was censorship here, none of your posts would ever be seen. You get way with murder. In fact, I suspect that you spend so much time here because no other discussion forum will accept your intolerant and frequently abusive rants. Or your predilection for inventing your own “facts”. The odds are that even the saturated fat and cholesterol apologist communities find your posts unacceptable and you have been booted out. If your posts has disappeared, put it down to fumblefingers or the inclusion of some internet link or character/key combination that caused the comment section software to malfunction. That happens to me with isome nternet links, on a regular basis

        Take this latest example. The Daily Mail article I linked to doesn’t mention cholesterol. Not even once. Yet here you are banging on about it again.

        I linked to it because it contains an article by Dr Greger. That’s all. However, it is a tabloid newspaper and yes it prints all kinds of stuff that it thinks will sell newspapers. That’s why you see reports there of studies there that seem to reach opposite conclusions.

        And the article you linked talks about HDL not LDL cholesterol (which it describes as “bad ” cholesterol). So how is this supposed to support your crank beliefs about LDL cholesterol? Let’s just ignore the fact that there were only 18 people in the study and only 17 completed it. In any case, if you go to the article itself, it does NOT say that full fat milk raises HDL cholesterol. What it says is “intake of whole milk increased HDL cholesterol concentration compared to skimmed milk.” So for ll we know (the full study is behind a paywall), all this means is that HDL fell with both whole milk and skim milk consumption but it fell more with skim milk. This sort of misleading wording is frequent with industry funded studies and, lo and behold, what do we find?
        “The study was supported by the Danish Dairy Research Foundation. The milk was donated by Arla Foods, Denmark.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-017-0042-5#Ack1

        Also, if you scroll down to the bottom of that daily mail article you linked to article, there is another one which states that “Plant-based diets really do lower cholesterol, according to a review of nearly 50 studies”.

        Now that is rather more credible than some Danish dairy industry study that only talks about the effects of full fat milk compared to skim milk on just 17 people.

        1. Re: Also, if you scroll down to the bottom of that daily mail article you linked to article, there is another one which states that “Plant-based diets really do lower cholesterol, according to a review of nearly 50 studies”.

          So now you said that the Daily Mail is fair and impartial as they report stories on both sides. What a cherry picked change of heart whenever you read something that you like.

          1. Jerry

            Huh? What didn’t you understand about “However, it is a tabloid newspaper and yes it prints all kinds of stuff that it thinks will sell newspapers. That’s why you see reports there of studies that seem to reach opposite conclusions”

            You are in grave risk of disappearing up your own backside with this kind of logic.

              1. Sure like Jerry’s references and knowledge are of equal kind to TG’s???
                Ever check one of Jerry’s links..it is quite amazing what one finds on occasion.
                Seeing a link he put up referenceing a historical Chinese diet a thousand year old diet…he links a street stall in Taiwan a you tube video on that…..and discounts scientific study that references that.
                Check any really he keeps putting up some odd job who is selling some diet thing on this thread four or five times already..complete total nonsense. They guy uses apparently other peoples you tube content and adds his thing to it….and then sells it all. Right there on the site……good source that about equal to TG”s???? .

                So yeah this is a equal argument …..in some place with marmalade colored skies that is.

            1. Let’s not forget that Jerry Lewis is the one who claimed that the study Silicone versus collagen plugs for treating dry eye: results of a prospective randomized trial including lacrimal scintigraphy. was really comparing silicone plugs to ingesting collagen.

    2. Interesting TG

      The UK as you probably know is having a real surge in veganism. The thing is taking off.
      Of course even better is plant based whole foods but it nevertheless improves ones health regardless about 90 times out of a 100 to my opinion..

        1. You and your pals in the saturated fat and cholesterol crank brigades appear to have a monopoly on that activity

          It certainly seems to be a major part of your core skillset along with mindless repetition, shouting and abusing people who disagree with you

        2. No offense Jerry but I stopped looking at and disputing your links when I saw one that had a Taiwan street stall video on you tube supposedly interpreted by you to show how the Chinese ate a thousand years ago.

          You seem to have a different way of interpreting things than I do.
          I challenged you once to a physical contest to see if you walk the walk as well as talk the talk…you did respond but not to take up my offer of one thousand to the winner.

          So I suspect regardless of your age are quite not in good shape and able to do much of any thing at all.
          Say I am wrong in that? So what point is it to be behind a keyboard saying things about others dietary preference if you cannot do a thing?
          Anyone can talk really.
          Tell me of your physical accomplishments what can you do? I care not of death as I think it fated..this thing is all about that to me. That and caring to not harm. Mostly the latter..

          1. Re: So I suspect regardless of your age are quite not in good shape and able to do much of any thing at all.

            I didn’t know that you can see through your puter monitor to know that I am not in good shape.

            Re: Say I am wrong in that? So what point is it to be behind a keyboard saying things about others dietary preference if you cannot do a thing?

            Since when do I tell anyone what they have to eat? But don’t mislead people with those fantasy stories about other culture diet written by a guy sitting in his bedroom in the U.S.

            1. You did not respond to my challenge. Not even a nibble. The challenge was you match my performance and I give you one thousand dollars. YOu do not and I give you that. I could have worked out the details with a local gym and mentioned that.

              So your failing to respond and my estimation indicates no great psychic powers or ability to see through computer screens but simple logic.
              I self described as a old vegan which should be by your read a weak person.
              So easy money any way you look at it transportation and costs included. 5oo USD profit and a vacation paid for…but you declined.

              So I repeat you can do nothing but sit behind a keyboard and question the validity of others here, their dietary preference.
              Your comments are not accompanied by any reasonable expectations of performance.
              AS are most of your links, not showing what you contend they do.

              1. Jerry you did not nibble or even begin on the specifics. Now it is past the point and do not extend that offer as a ringer could be brought in. Someone claiming to be you but in the real a professional athlete.

                Truth be known not that many years ago due to speciality I would take on even a ringer with no worry.
                But if you nibbled I would easily have thrown the number up to 2 or 3 k.
                I am that confident that a person who speaks as you do on the internet with the diet you prefer has not a ability in the physical. As easy as 2 and 2 makes 4 by my read a very safe bet.

                I have been on discussion boards since the 1990’s and have on occasion seen the peoples making comments on things. I know what they generally look like and what they can do. It is simply a matter of experience. You can tell a person by tone. Your tone tells me that…nothing… you have not a thing physically, but you do like to talk.

                Say it is not so. Tell me what you can do so I may respect what you say. What is your speciality of the physical. Do you run lift box kick swing a racket or club…what is it? Surely you must do something?

              2. Ron in New Mexico, your “challenge” is childish because you know that I will never see you and so you know that you will never lose.

                But lose or win, what does it prove anything? If I can beat up a 5 year old kid then what does it prove?

                Re: I self described as a old vegan which should be by your read a weak person.

                This is another childish accusation. I never said that any vegan is weak or sick. All I said is that for most people who have to work or have a busy life then we have to eat a certain amount of animal foods to optimize our health, because we don’t have all the time in the world to prepare food and eat. And you criminalize us for doing this like we destroy the environment and torture animals and make up stories to show that eating some animal foods is bad to health.

                Remember that the kale that you put in your mouth was picked by a meat eater.

                So it’s the lies that I want to expose and and in no term trashing your plant food eating.

                1. Well I am glad to hear you actually saying some real stuff that I disagree with but is undeniably what you think and not some gibberish accompanied by links to nonsense.

                  I am not in the business of criminalizing meat eaters. It is a preference in diet. One may or may not engage meat eating but it is their choice not anothers to make.
                  I say meat eaters should be real in it however. I like meat and I eat it as I like the taste….that is a real person making a real statement. One who states things truthfully and is then directly accountable for their actions.

                  So I think we are a bit the same. So pick on me and I will pick on you. Treat me with respect and I will likely treat you the same way.
                  I think you are throwing in a lot of not true stuff but apparently you firmly believe in it. Meat/dairy is not good for health for most peoples, some it does not matter. And it is worse for the environment being more productive of carbon than not.
                  WE kill by any harvest so none are innocent in this. Less harm to animals this way yes. Busy and doing this, yes we can now, earlier it was all hand made stuff and was hard to do..

                  Intentionally harming animals for no reason..meat eaters are not doing that.
                  .Hunting and hunters are my preference as peoples go… not vegans. I don’t like most vegans, they suck.. But I still will not eat animal or fish insect whatever nor their milk unless I was starving. But it is in the main religious not rational material choice.

                  So why are you concerned with this site and these people here? Are you demonic….demons spirts may do these things I know for reasons that make no sense to humans.So are you?

                  1. On the challenge it would show if you could back up your talk with action.A thousand could fund any plane ticket and any stay in a hotel with extra to benefit as profit. So it was quite doable. There is no I will never see you. A thousand provides the funds.
                    You meeting the challenge would mean you have confidence in your diet. Enough to meet one of us on a equal even playing field of physical accomplishment.

                    I was in the practice when I was in the thick of meditation to throw a challenge of a meeting and stay on one of the highest peaks in New Mexico during peak thunderstorm period, when they come to the high peaks every day. To stay in meditational situation despite possible threat by lightening strike death consequence and all the rest…to find out who really trusts in that thing and does not care of death….so I am not new to challenge on internet . It is doable. We create the doing and situation that favors it.

                    I would challenge you to that now this summer if that be a preference to show this challenge thing may be real…do you care to engage that instead? 2 thousand if you stay there and I leave. 2 thousand if I stay there and you leave….up for it? I will make the arrangements.
                    One full day Pecos Baldy peak during peak thunderstorm period mid august. 9 Am to 9 pm.
                    To show a internet challenge may be a real challenge with real consequence? up for it?
                    2 thousand as this requires a trip by backpacking into the wilderness. And time is money at least a three or four day thing….this be real up for it?.You win think of it…you make a larger sum of money. And a vacation to boot. Are you a person experienced in meditation…we could do this.
                    You have strong opinions are they formed from study of mind, or just formed? Haphazardly as one would form a mishapened pot perhaps.

                    1. I am waiting…..

                      Think think think…..will that help you in this response?. My suggestion is to just go with it…respond.
                      If crooked gourd is the tool everything will always come out crooked it seems.
                      Some times it is better to not think a thing of response but to simply respond….so what say you Jerry?

                    2. Ron and Jerry
                      I bet Jerry’s dad can beat Ron’s dad .
                      BTW Ron how many times do you feel you were struck by lightning ?

      1. I have to say 20+ years ago the UK seemed to be leading the charge in veganism (big time), and it was pretty exciting. Initially a large part of that was the animal rights/animal ethics movement. Sadly, animal “welfare” has won over the animal rights movement (here and there) and now the vegetarian sections of stores are filled with milk/cheese/ & egg ingredients. I noticed at the big chain stores over there that the vegetarian options increased greatly in the last few years, but vegan options actually decreased from, say, 10 years ago (outside of whole plant foods, of course). I did hear more ppl talk about temporary plant based diets for weight loss, but in my recent experience finding a fellow vegan was quite rare. Maybe there was a surge I didn’t see. I sure hope so.

        1. A title from one article in the lifestyle section of the guardian today…
          UK supermarkets report surge in sales of vegan food “
          Another is referencing vegan food for dogs curiously. Another stating grow your own food stop harming the environment..
          There is a third as well but honestly I forget the content.

              1. Here is a nice thing in foods on a vegan dish…
                Meera Sodha’s vegan swede laksa recipe “
                Just the title though did not link it.
                Yes Jennifer be happy your hopes are realized.

                Veganism is on fire in the UK.Not a day goes by without a mention in the guardian. That is not the daily mail you know ;)
                At least half their stuff is not made up..;(

            1. Don’t ask me why but I actually did bother to check the link…
              Go figure it proves not a thing. It is a synopsis of a discussion between two sides one who now currently holds the food contract for LA animal shelter and those who propose another. Those proposeing another state a vegan diet is not appropriate for dogs. Apparently this company sells vegan dog food.
              There are two sides to the argument…Here is a copy of part of the vegan dog food side….”After setting forth his main concerns, Dr. Prupas explained that Los Angeles Animal Services’ (LAAS) current pet food contract is with Canidae All Life Stages, (made by Ethos Pet Nutrition) and there have been no reports of serious dietary problems with transition into or out of the city shelters using this food.”

              Now to the facts…dogs must be fed things they have habitual preference for. What they are used to or they get sick. In this specific most dogs kept there are probably not fed vegan dog food. So probably it is better for the dogs to have regular dog food.

              AS to dogs…there is no requirement for them to eat meat or dairy. Cats must have a amino taurine found only in meat or they languish and die without it. So generally supplement with the amino or one with a cat must feed it meat or fish at times.

              As to you Jerry check amazon for a minute vegan dog food. There are bunches to be found. Do you suppose just for a minute if that was dog abuse consisted of feeding dogs vegan pet food… it would be illegal to do that????
              Yes jerry it would be.

              But it is not.So you have learned a thing today. Be happy. Despite being a person who can not do much but talk about things you know nothing about you have learned a thing.

              1. Funny how you guys always said that human used to be monkey and eat this and that millions of years ago and therefore we have to eat the same today. And now dogs who have been a carnivore since its existence on earth have always been a carnivore, have to be vegan. Very soon you guys will ban tiger and lion from eating meat. I don’t know if this is ignorance or selfish animal abuse but I suspect that it is both.

                1. Humans were never monkeys. The evolutionary split was more than a million years ago. Dogs are carnivorous by preference and functional ability but by practice are omnivores. They can and do eat most anything they find appealing. Plants are often a part of their diet. Dogs seem to all like sweet potatoes for instance.
                  Which is why vets find dogs always being brought in for consuming all sorts of things. Cats with the exception of hair balls never.

                  As to animal abuse I have versed the opposition to that earlier… do you even see it or willfully ignore it?
                  Vegan pet food for dogs is found in virtually every pet store and on amazon. If it was dog abuse to feed dogs that and they could not
                  thrive without normal pet foods it would be illegal..but it is not.

                  Your comment above suggests that thing about monkeys shows clearly your direction is to fundamental Christianity as that is a statement one of them is commonly making.
                  This…”Funny how you guys always said that human used to be monkey and eat this and that millions of years ago

                  So now is revealed the reason for your abhorance of the notion of veganism and Dr Greger as a proponent of veganism in practice of diet.
                  No offense to other Christians as only but a few adhere to that notion, it says no negative thing about Christianity at all.But some do indeed consider animals being given to us to be done with as we desire as gods word in his good book. They do a small minority do believe that.

                  Say it is not so? Deny that if it is not so?

                  1. Absent the denial I can only say this quandary, the why of this compulsion…. has been figured out.

                    IN a similar fashion the weather underground was beset by several posters of the same obsessive kind with the same motivational source. Always challenging climate change with various means. Always obsessed with it..
                    The earth was to end by fire that was its biblical destiny and we should could not fight that thing. It was then immoral to fight against global warming. Part of that involved denying the notion itself.

                    No offense to other Christians as this is a rare offshoot of mainstream Christianity and say no negative thing about that religion at all.
                    This without a denial is but one form of it a rare form.

                    Could all be wrong if he simply denies it. I predict he will say a thing or two but within that thing or two will not be found denial.
                    Christians of that sort may not deny their lord. So we will see. Outright denial and I say…no I was wrong.

          1. ron, what would be a vegan food? Veggies and fruits, whole grains and beans, seeds and nuts? Prepared and eaten at home? Or processed “vegan food,” such as meat substitutes, and cakes, cookies, pizzas, pretzels, soft drinks, chips, frozen prepared foods, etc, etc? Both are “vegan foods,” but one is definitely healthier than the other. I wonder what the surge of sales was observed in.

          2. The subtitle to the article…
            Half of UK adults adopting ‘vegan-buying behaviour’ as number of full-time vegans grows four-fold in 10 years”

            Reading through health and lifestyle found bunches of references to being vegan. A local DJ is interviewed, she mentions how she was vegan but now tries to eat much less meat instead. Another vegan receipe, they now are apparently one of the regular columns…. and on and on. Vegan stuff everywhere really.

            We should see what worked there and do it here by my read. It would help peoples health. Almost as good as WFPB which really has to say vegan WFPB as the meat lobby will certainly abscribe to the notion of meat as a whole food. Does not whole foods sell meat and dairy?? Which is my point…. perception.
            Stop running from progressiveness and the naming of things in a newer way….it is the fashion to be progressive. It sells the thing which needs to be sold. WFPB vegan diet it should read.

            1. Always it pointed to the negative part of being vegan the junk food vegan..but how many really do that? A couple of college kids on a fad by my read.

              Why run from the movement with this thing saying on WFPBased….I know it is but really without vegan added to the name meat will be added to that. KETO people do that already. Do they not? Check their discussion boards.

              Whole foods the connotation always had a dispute with the meat industry over the term. Check Wikipedia currently they even mention that, the dispute.
              Many want to run away from vegan as they want to run away perhaps from the idea of diet as less harm or diet as a special thing only scientists docs know how to do. True both but it leads none to your side. It must be common to take in us commoners like me.

              Vegan is understood with the qualifier it must be added to with a WFPB designation. But it Is a WFPBased vegan diet not a keto WFPBased diet.
              You by the junk food notation are allowing their side the meat industry to define you…in marketing that is not allowable.

        2. Re: I did hear more ppl talk about temporary plant based diets for weight loss, but in my recent experience finding a fellow vegan was quite rare. Maybe there was a surge I didn’t see. I sure hope so.

          This is the scary part when people become vegan merely for weight loss and they eat very little because of the weight loss obsession. In fact when you eat only plant foods, you do have to eat a lot more and a diverse amount of plant foods to get all of the necessary nutrients. When done wrong, eating minimal plant foods is only a little bit better than SAD eaters.

          The other misconception is that you lose weight by eating less. It’s quite the contrary, you eat a lot of nutritious foods and in particular fat to lose weight. Now don’t be mistaken with fasting, intermittent or for a few days. Fasting does not mean eating less, but you simply go for a duration of time without eating and then make it up by eating all the nutrients that you need after the fasting period ends.

          People who eat less to lose weight actually gain weight.

          P.S. I see on TV that most newscasters are now skinny like a stick and it is trendy right now. They don’t look healthy because I can see wrinkles on their face on my big screen HDTV.

          1. Fat is the most caloric intense substance one could possibly eat.
            Where is your nonsensical reference to back up all this nonsense you are apparently off the cuff spouting here….
            Everyone needs to eat a diverse amount of plant foods to obtain necessary nutrition……..geeze louise.

        3. Russian military is feeding troops more and more fruits and vegetables and less and less meat. They are trying to produce soldiers that have fewer colds, flus, and sickness. Russians like to weaponize everything. Now they are starting to weaponize food to create stronger soldiers and scientists. Meanwhile, American politicians, and military people eat at McDonalds.

      1. That is a video by some third party with parts of it being other peoples videos. Mel Gibson is one of the main guys speaking in the pasted videos.
        Mel Gibson frames about all his beliefs on diet and health in his considered Christian aspect. Most recently he is advocating for stem cell treatments without human embryo source materials. Why…as that is invariably aborted tissue used. So he claims this process he advocates for is better…

        Maybe it is but how can you trust the guy? For good or bad he is looking through that tinted lens.
        This is another questionable linked source which does not really show a thing.

        1. Re: Why…as that is invariably aborted tissue used.

          That’s gibberish and a lie. The stem cells come from the umbilical cord of mothers when they deliver their babies. Educate yourself before accusing and insulting people. That’s your first step to gain respect.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwV1nBiYlFw&t=88s

          Re: Another video by that same guy. That guy is selling his books and series right there within the video. And appears to be using others video content. 50% off if we act now. How can we trust a person doing such a thing to be giving us real objective information?

          Regarding the videos, call it what you want but Dr Greger and Quack and Meat eater Doctor Mercola appear side by side.

          Regarding my mission here is to debunk the falsehoods on fat, cholesterol and animal food eating. I have no intention of trashing eating plant foods as I eat a lot myself, more than most of you.

          1. This from think progress a sept 2015 article… a quote on a thing that everyone except you Jerry knows about…
            Since the biological material from aborted fetuses is a rich source of stem cells, scientists say these donations can also help them study a host of degenerative diseases. Fetal tissue is used to develop new ways to treat AIDS, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, cancer, and eyesight “loss.

            Guys standing side by side is a endorsement.???

            1. Specifically Mel Gibson who I thought was thoroughly discredited due to certain racist statements, states a preference for medical treatments using stem cells derived from other areas. Specifically he refers to his father who had this treatment in Panama I think it was by a American doc. That treatment not legal in the us according to him uses stem cells derived from other means. Mels father returned to complete cognition as well as recovered from a deabilitating hip injury..

              So no Jerry as usual by my quote from that article and about a thousand others… stem cells are indeed recovered from aborted fetal tissues and used for research in remediation of the same diseases and injuries that Mel talks about. But without the use of fetal stem cells. Mel has objection to the use of aborted fetal tissues for any purpose devote born again Christian that he is.

              1. Have any of your links Jerry a single one ever proved a point you are making?.Just curious.
                Nice you tube video bay a self admitted marketer at a ted talk though…. a bit tedious but again not proving your point a bit.

            2. Re: Guys standing side by side is a endorsement.???

              So just for argument, if Ron in New Mexico appears in an ISIS video then it’s not an endorsement.

              1. Not if ISIS steals my youtube content without my permission and posts it there….

                Do I have to explain every bit of modern life to you??? Is there anything you know?

      2. Why?

        Wouldn’t people be far better off reading The World Health Organization’s report on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases?
        http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/en/

        Or the World Cancer Research Fund’s expert report on food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer?
        http://www.wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/continuous-update-project-cup/second-expert-report

        Or the scientific report of the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee?
        https://ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/2015_DGAC_Scientific_Report.pdf

        But if people are into videos, Dr Greger’s are firmly grounded in the scientific evidence and avoid woo. There are hundreds in not thousand here. I also particularly like an old 2003 presentation he did
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04

        but his latest summary is great too
        https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-not-to-die/

        And Plant Positive has a range of wonderfully informative videos that report the science on nutrition and health while dissecting the claims of the internet “health” entrepeneurs and snake oil merchants
        http://plantpositive.com/

        Or of course they could watch Dan Buettner’s video on how to to 100+ based on his Blue Zones book
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff40YiMmVkU

    3. Thanks Tom for sharing the link. I am glad that Dr. Greger is gaining more and more popularity day by day. I ordered my two books the other day on How Not To Die and the cookbook that goes with it. Presently, I am really getting into AMLA. I eat two frozen berries everyday. Plus I started adding white button mushrooms to my black beans and rice mix. And, now I am rinsing my mouth with green tea. I am doing all of this because of Dr. Greger’s videos. Thanks again for defending the truth.

    4. I didn’t feel like scrolling all the way down to post this. But this protest for greater funding for the NHS makes my point. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/04/nhs-budget-cuts-march-protest-jeremy-hunt-london-funding

      I didn’t intend to argue against NHS per se, but rather the attempt to run such a system “on the cheap.” The Tories there have not funded it adequately. Perhaps it can be free at the point of service, but it still needs to be adequately funded.

  1. So. … If Mamos can no longer be considered the gold standard for early detection for those who wish to stay in control of their health and healthcare, what is relative to breast care? Micro tumors can’t be predicted to be unlikely to develop if left alone … are you actually suggesting we take a wait and see approach to tumor development? Should we rely on our own self-assessment for the discovery of masses and then decide if intervention is warranted?

      1. Thermography has the same rate of false positive and false negative as mammogram with the exception that thermography does not have radiation. Also thermography is slightly better than mammogram to detect cancer in dense breast.

        1. “Results
          132 patients were included. The median age of all patients was 49.5 ± 10.3 years (range 24-75 years). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for mammography were 80.5%, 73.3%, 85.4%, 66.0%, and 76.9%, respectively, whereas for thermography the figures were 81.6%, 57.8%, 78.9%, 61.9%, and 69.7%, respectively.

          Conclusion
          Our study confirms that, at the present time, thermography cannot substitute for mammography for the early diagnosis of breast cancer.”
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5040931/

      1. for those of us willing to read and research, i agree. … and those who follow NutritionFacts.org… Plant-based eating and proper lifestyle choices are the only real solutions for most of life’s ills… This is NOT however what the medical community selects to promote which is why Dr. G and the lifestyle medical community are frustrated with the current state of affairs… To think that our family practice doctors and breast care specialists are wrapped up in the billion dollar largess of cancer care is sickening and corrupt; yet true….

        1. Right on. If women would forget about pink ribbons and put their energy into promoting cleaning up heavy metals and other toxics in products and the environment…we’d all live longer.

          Looks like breast cancer and prostate cancer are both best pretty much left alone….concentrate on prevention and a healthy lifestyle?

          1. While you were arguing about this and that?

            Want to avoid toxics…well good luck with that…remember….it’s corporate profits first!

            https://www.alternet.org/food/real-state-union-6-ways-trump-bad-food-health-and-environment

            One year down, three to go. Trump and his enablers are hell bent on destroying or selling to the highest bidder the federal agencies they are charged with running in the public interest. In the past year, they have been unrelenting in their attacks on food safety, environmental protections, climate change, government transparency, and so many other values we hold dear. We are in the midst of the most significant environmental and public health challenges imaginable. We’re no longer dreading the harm the Trump Administration could do to our health and environment—we’re living it.

            If you watched the State of the Union address this week, you may have picked out a common thread: gutting regulations—many of them crucial to protecting our food and environment—for the sake of higher corporate profits. Trump’s boast that “we have cut more regulations in our first year than any other administration in history”, may be good if you’re Monsanto or Exxon, but it’s dangerous for you and me and our families.

            1. Yeah well I am pretty sure anyone with even half a brain knows that.

              So it is everyone for themselves so what? Like it was not like that before?
              We have to take responsibility for things ourselves which is why most of us here go to Dr Greger as opposed to some nitwit the corporations sell us.

            2. Bugs,

              It’s unfortunate that you bring up politics on a NUTRITION website :-( But the dis-information you stated in your post deserves a rebuttal.

              In my opinion, from an objective viewpoint, the excessive regulation imposed on the U.S. during the last 8 years of the previous administration did nothing but stifle the economy. (One of the key elements of the Cloward-Piven strategy is to create mounds of regulations.) For example, with every transaction I now have with the government or any business, I get about 5 extra sheets of paper mailed to me, when 1 sheet can easily contain the pertinent information. Talk about a waste of natural resources! The over-regulation has not helped the average U.S. citizen at all. And the only effect that the excessive regulations of U.S. energy production had was to put the U.S. at a disadvantage relative to China, Russia, India, etc. who continue to produce more environmental pollution than the U.S. ever did.

              Yes, we do need some regulations, but they most be thought through carefully by analyzing the ramifications and side-effects. And I haven’t seen any changes at all in the regulations of food safety. In a nutshell, we need science based regulations, not haphazard ones based on a misguided ideology.

              And as far as “selling government agencies to the highest bidder”, that has been going on since Franklin D Roosevelt was president in the last century! If anything, what I am seeing is the current administration trying to “Drain the Swamp” of the corruption in both political parties in Washington, and make Government work for “We the People”, rather than special interests. In fact, one of the President’s first moves was to decrease the effectiveness of lobbying in Washington, by imposing a 5 year ban.

              And since you brought up “transparency”, what I am now seeing in the recent news is that the current Administration is now exposing the secret shenanigans of the previous administration and their “friends” in the mainstream media. Disgusting and much worse than Watergate!

                1. Bugs,

                  From what I have been reading, Mueller is part of the “Deep State”, ie. the elite who have been running the country in the background with the help of the mainstream media, for many generations now. With the rise of the Internet, the average person now has access to more truthful sources of news. The game is over for the mainstream media and their spinning of the news to support their elite bosses.

                  In a certain sense, the situation is similar to the way this NutritionFacts website is finally displaying the truth about nutrition after so many years of the meat, egg, dairy and even the medical industries and all their cohorts in the mainstream media constantly feeding us false information about nutrition for so long.

                  Instead of the Mueller witch-hunt that has produced nothing, wouldn’t it be nice to see a full investigation of the fake Russian Dossier, Fusion GPS, and the obtaining of a FISA warrant using the dossier as evidence? Now we’re talking substance!

                  Can we please get back to Nutrition discussions now???

          2. Bugs, we have one of each disease you mention in our household. I think it’s important to differentiate between screening tests, the PSA and mammogram, which did not improve overall mortality and quality of life as hoped — believed? — and symptoms, which should not be ignored or “left alone” but medical care sought asap. Because the treatments for both breast cancer and prostate cancer have improved outcomes — for those diseases in which symptoms appear. The paradigm of early detection — by these screening methods, anyway — leads to fewer deaths is changing. I hope that early effective sensitive and specific screening tests, with few false positives and false negatives and leading to improved outcomes are soon developed. Even better would be a decreased incidence of these diseases in the first place, which is why we now eat — and advocate — a whole foods plant based diet. An ounce of prevention is worth way more than a pound of cure.

  2. Is it possible these studies are skewed to justify these other countries not providing mammograms as well as colonoscopies? Not providing these services is one way these systems do spend less than our system does. You, similarly, previously have questioned the use of Colonscopies, given that other countries don’t make this procedure as available. This article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3625020/ shows that Colonscopies performed by Gastroenterologists DO have a protective effect for mortality. A Canadian study where GP’s performed Colonoscopies didn’t find as much benefit. One reason Canada spends less on healthcare than we do, is that they use far fewer specialists than we do. I have had three Colonscopies. All three times, polyps have been found and removed. Simoidoscopies cannot remove polyps. Colonoscopies enable their removal. And the stool test won’t always detect polyps at all. As far as I can tell, there are few if any side effects from removing polyps, even if they wouldn’t have turned into cancer. And having Gastroenterologists perform them should decrease the chance of side effects, such as perforated colons. Of course, biopsies on Breasts require an incision, which can cause harm, whereas Colonoscopies involve no incisions.

    1. Daniel, you wrote “Not providing these services is one way these systems do spend less than our system does. ”

      That’s not how it works. Countries with national health care systems also pay for both cancer treatment and the care of cancer patients. They frequently pay pensions and social security payments to patients who are unable to support themselves. In many countries too they also pay pensions and allowances to family and friends caring for patients who are unable to care for themselves. If screening actually saved lives and/or permitted early appropriate treatment, and on balance was cost effective, they would use such procedures because they would save the government money. in toto.

      1. I wasn’t per se arguing against national systems. In fact, Greger cited one study against mammograms which came from Switzerland, which has an even LESS public healthcare system than the U.S. Their system is like everyone was on the exchanges on Obamacare, which people here use if they can’t get healthcare from their jobs or they don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. People there don’t get healthcare directly from the government NOR their jobs. Most people here get it either from the government OR their jobs. My argument was more against the idea propounded by many that when a country spends less on healthcare, they automatically get better health outcomes. It wasn’t on FOX that I read some of these things. BBC.co.uk had many articles about how Britain had lower cancer survival rates than many other countries. One thing they attributed this to was having fewer Specialized services as well as not having Colonoscopies that available. But one reason Britain might spend less is that it does limit Specialized services and uses less medical technology. Medicare HERE, which is PUBLIC does pay for Colonoscopies and Mammograms. The U.S. government spends more on a per capita basis than most other industrialized countries and that is despite the fact that the overhead costs of Medicare and Medicaid are very low. People on Medicare and Medicaid here have more access to Specialists, which cost money, and they aren’t put on long waiting lists, as they might in a system which spent a lot less. OF COURSE, people without any insurance or sub optimal insurance in this country will go without and will often have to wait, but the conundrum is how to provide good healthcare for ALL without skimping on needed services or having long wait times as is the case in some other countries.

        1. That’s an argument certainly but I tend to look at international comparisons like that done by the NY-based The Commonwealth Fund. It comments

          “The United States spends far more on health care than other high-income countries, with spending levels that rose continuously over the past three decades (Exhibit 1). Yet the U.S. population has poorer health than other countries. …………………….

          The United States ranks last in health care system performance among the 11 countries included in this study …………………..

          he top-ranked countries overall are the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Netherlands. In general, the U.K. achieves superior performance compared to other countries in all areas except Health Care Outcomes, where it ranks 10th despite experiencing the fastest reduction in deaths amenable to health care in the past decade.”
          http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

          And even though the UK ranked 10th on health care outcomes, the US ranked 11th. So I think that it would be hard to argue that the US spends more bit delivers better outcomes.

          1. The United States has better Cancer survival rates than most other countries, certainly better than Britain. Even BBC.co.uk stated this. Countries which spend more on healthcare tend to have higher cancer survival rates.

            1. Hi Daniel,

              I am a health support volunteer that helps Dr. Greger answer questions posted to NutritionFacts. I know you have not posed a question; but I was curious when I read your comment and wanted to verify your claims regarding US spending for Cancer and survival rates. I found this very current article which concludes: “Our results suggest that cancer care in the United States may provide less value than corresponding cancer care in Western Europe for many leading cancers.”
              For those who can’t access the link, here is the quick version: US has sharply increased its spending for cancer treatment since 1970 (as compared to Western Europe) but has experienced only a modest decline in mortality. The study authors looked at twelve cancer types and did a cost-benefit analysis with the question: does all the additional spending in the US lead to a better outcome than Western European countries which spend much less on the same cancer types? The ratio of incremental cost to quality-adjusted life-years saved equaled $402,000 for breast cancer, $110,000 for colorectal cancer, and $1,979,000 for prostate cancer-“amounts that exceed most accepted thresholds for cost-effective medical care. “The United States lost quality-adjusted life-years despite additional spending for lung cancer: -$19,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved.
              So yes, we spend a lot more on the war on cancer, but we don’t appear to get a lot for that spending.

              –Lisa

              1. No European country has better Cancer survival rates than the U.S.I think you have to have a happy medium. Like I said below, perhaps we need to be more prudent in how we spend. However, European countries are often excessively frugal in how much they spend on their healthcare systems. We may overuse technology, they don’t have a sufficient amount of it. They also often send people to this country to get cutting edge cancer treatments. I have read that on the news about a woman from Canada who was sent to the Mayo Clinic for a sophisticated procedure. It was good the Canadian system paid for her treatments, but the Canadian system wasn’t equipped to treat her. And it isn’t just hype that people DO have long wait times in other countries. This has been stated in THEIR press as has the lower cancer survival rates- even the very progressive Guardian.co.uk states this. The Guardian also states the British system is subject to collapse. This is because they don’t spend enough on their systems, NOT because they are national. Of course, you have to have a happy medium on how much should be spent.

                  1. But we DO have better cancer outcomes than at least Great Britain and most other countries do. Perhaps not with life expectancy. But life expectancy, as this website teaches, is more about diet than about medical care. Surviving cancer is both about diet and medical care.

                  2. I DID read it and it was interesting that although it didn’t place much value on Mammography, it did place some value on Prostate screening, but a LOT on Colonoscopies and other Colon screenings. It did say that colorectal screening was effective and that the United States was a leader in providing these. Colonoscopies are easier to come by in our system than in European systems.

          2. The British press never claims that Britain achieves superior Cancer survival rates. All international comparisons show that America has among the best Cancer survival rates in the world, certainly better than Britain. Perhaps greater medical care spending doesn’t always translate into higher overall life expectancy, but it does help with Cancer survival rates. Britain at one time tried to increase their healthcare spending to improve their cancer survival rates.

            1. Daniel

              This is true . However, we can probably find individual outcome areas where either the UK or US is superior to the other. Nevertheless, overall life expectancy in the UK is better than in the US and they seem to achieve this by spending significantly less on healthcare (and I don’t think that the diet there is any better than it is in the US):
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_World_Health_Organization_(2015)

              The US does seem to lead the world in expensive high tech treatments, though, but how accessible these are to ordinary Americans without good health insurance or significant savings is something you would probably know more about than I do. There are also questions about whether survival rates are simply artefacts of the date of diagnosis or even the result of over-diagnosis. See eg this discussion here
              https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/13/why-the-us-has-better-cancer-survival-rates-than-the-rest-of-the-world/#78981cdc4b67

              Yes, I think cancer survival rates are improving significantly in the UK. Whether this is because of better treatment or simply earlier detection, I don’t know.

              It’s all very interesting but I suppose the real question is, is the US getting best value for its healthcare spending and is the current situation sustainable in the long run? I understand that this has been a matter for debate in the US for some time.
              https://altarum.org/health-policy-blog/sustainable-u-s-health-spending-in-the-next-administration-symposium-summary

              Although it is an issue that faces all developed countries
              http://www.oecd.org/health/healthcarecostsunsustainableinadvancedeconomieswithoutreform.htm

              1. First of all, I do want to state that I don’t agree at all with the Republicans on healthcare. But I am for a mixed public private system, very much like the ACA. Republicans are for a pure free market system with no consumer protections. Bernie is for a pure governmental system with all private insurance strictly banned. But even though I greatly prefer the British system over what the Republicans propose, even they don’t go as far as Bernie’s proposal to do away with all private healthcare. Certainly people can use private healthcare there. Perhaps because the UK has strong primary care, it can help life expectancy in that primary care Physicians often will encourage good health habits. However, just taking drugs for all that ails us doesn’t help life expectancy. Here is something which states the injury gap can lower life expectancy in this country. https://www.google.com/amp/www.medicaldaily.com/life-expectancy-injury-high-income-countries-372832%3famp=1

                1. Daniel Wagle,

                  Here we go again with more political discussion, which doesn’t belong on a Nutrition website. But since you raised the issue, let’s look at it from some different perspectives.

                  First, I doubt if the Republicans want a “pure free market system”. They know it is not practically achievable. And they are driven by lobbyist just like the Democrats. Neither Party has the true interests of the average American in mind. We’ve had “Crony” Capitalism in this country for many generations now and it probably won’t go away any time soon because it does give a modicum of free choice, although very limited in most areas.

                  Bernie is an admitted communist and, of course, wants everything to be free for everyone! Good luck with that. Not many people want to work for free, so who is going to do all the daily work? Most people want to get rewarded proportionately for the amount of work they do … you work harder/smarter you should get paid more. How do you feel when you work hard and some slackard co-worker gets paid the same as you? Socialism has been experimented with several times in the last century, and every single time it has been a miserable failure! For example, just take a look at Venezuela or Cuba today. They both have socialist style free health care. Would you like to live in one of those Socialist paradises?

                  For myself, I lean towards having the most free choice in all areas of life as possible. I don’t want any doctor telling me what kind of treatment the official State government wants me to have done. The real key to all this is having freedom of choice coupled with good unbiased educational resources such as NutritionFacts.org. If people don’t want to learn the optimal healthy way of eating, and want to continue to eat the SAD junk food diet, I certainly don’t want to pay for their health care when they made no effort whatsoever to change their diet. I realize that some people get sick despite eating a healthy Whole Plant Food diet, and there will always be accidents that require medical attention and that’s where catastrophic insurance comes into play, the original way insurance was meant to be.

                  1. Bernie is a communist and so forget about him. At the same time, we don’t want the European model either where everything is free. Their system is on the verge of bankruptcy and socialist countries like Sweden is starting to move away from this free model.

                    So we just look at Obamacare and what the Republicans are proposing. Forget about politics and just figure out how we can ensure everybody at the lowest cost.

                    So in Obamacare, everybody are forced to buy health insurance and that pool of money is used to pay for the 29M or so of people who currently have no insurance. The problem is that the cost and premium keep rising for the working people who already have health insurance from their company.

                    Doing the Republicans then we will have a free system whereas people will decide to buy health insurance or not, and the system will be run by the private sector. The problem is that there is not enough money to cover the 29M of people who have no insurance. The Obamacare system is like car insurance, you buy it whether or not you have any accident and the money will be used to pay for those who will have accident, including yourself some day.

                    OK, so the solution is probably in between. On one hand, we leave alone the health insurance that is already covered by the private sector. For the 29M of uninsured people, we will raise tax a little bit to give them insurance. But we will put a cap on the coverage and have a high premium like 5K to avoid abuse like seeing the doctor for every minor illness or take medication like candy.

                    Of course the best and cheapest solution is to subsidize kale to the entire nation, rich and poor will get free kale.

                  2. I think people SHOULD take responsibility for their health habits. It think THIS should be the main individual responsibility, rather than to pay through one’s nose. My brother is morbidly obese and he got really mad at me when I suggested that he be in a health education class to coach in losing weight in order to get the free healthcare from Medicare that he wants. The way I look at it, all the free healthcare in the world won’t make up for bad health habits. I think the whole population should be in a health immersion, such as what I saw that John McDougall had done for some companies for their employees in order to cut down on healthcare costs. And perhaps 20% of all illnesses are not avoidable. I personally got off a high dose of Statin drugs by losing weight and really getting my cholesterol down. I actually felt guilty that the company I work for was paying for an illness that I could control, just by losing weight. I have maintained a 100 pound weight loss going on 8 years now. And since then, I gave up the meat and dairy and eggs as much as possible. You know that many foods DO contain dairy and eggs. These foods can only be avoided if I eat only things that I have fixed myself.

                  3. I suspect most of us living in advanced countries other than the US would regard common US views like yours in the same way that you would look at the opinions of Appalachian moonshiners

          3. Here is a source which states that the U.S. achieves better Cancer survival rates than Great Britain. https://qz.com/397419/the-british-seem-less-likely-to-get-cancer-than-americans-yet-less-likely-to-survive-why/ This article attributes this to the fact that in the U.S. cancer is over diagnosed and likely to be caught in its earlier stage than in Great Britain. It takes money to over diagnose and since the British system has a very tight budget, it doesn’t always have the means to spend money to save money. Perhaps the British system is excessively frugal, whereas we need to be more prudent in how we spend money.

            1. Re: Here is a source which states that the U.S. achieves better Cancer survival rates than Great Britain.

              We are talking about a few percent difference and it’s 5 year survival and not permanent cancer cure.

              So if I have cancer then obviously from a selfish point of view, myself and my family will care about those few percent difference and 5+ year survival as opposed to let say 4 year survival.

              But to make a national health care policy then we have to put aside the personal emotion and feeling and go with the statistics for the good of the majority of people. Some states like Oregon spends money on terminal ill patients based on statistics of survival time (in may cases a lot of money is spent just to buy a few more months).

              Like Lisa said above, the cancer rate in the U.K. is lower than in the U.S. This can be attributed to many factors. But for the money spent to make cancer patients live longer than 5 years, would it be more beneficial to spend on preventing cancer in the first place, such as educating people on better nutrition?

              Now foods are always the best, no argument about it. But for 90% or more of the population that eat a SAD diet and are not willing to change, if I am the government, I will distribute for free Vitamins B, C and D. Vitamin A is needed too but I read that it has to come from foods, but otherwise (real) vitamin A is the most important vitamin. This will be much cheaper than spending money on detecting and “curing” cancer.

          1. Member states I should say. Some are not fully described countries

            Sierra Leone is tied for last with Burma.
            A statistically based study with cost and expectations as the basis.Quite a good read.
            I say all else fails trust in the WHO being a big big fan.

      2. Also, I didn’t say other countries didn’t provide cancer treatments. I just went by what Greger said, that they provided stool tests and sigmoidoscopies much more than Colonoscopies. But only Colonoscopies enable polyp removal. Mammograms are not as provided, but Breast cancer treatments are.

        1. Re: The United States spends far more on health care than other high-income countries, with spending levels that rose continuously over the past three decades (Exhibit 1). Yet the U.S. population has poorer health than other countries.

          TG, do you think it has to do partially with the fake cholesterol and blood pressure theories and unnecessary treatment that makes people even sicker?

          1. Jerry

            The entire planet accepts the science concerning dietary saturated fat, blood cholesterol and blood pressure being risk factors for disease. It’s not unique to the US, Jerry..

            However, the fee for service system does provided incentives for care providers, including doctors and hospitals, to over treat. Any treatment, surgery, drugs etc, carries a risk of poor outcomes. Perhaps there is just more over treatment in the US, who knows? This of course always brings to mind those stories of how, when doctors go on strike, mortality often goes down
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101

            So, it probably has a lot to do with the way the health system is structured. The Commonwealth Fund has a number of ideas about how the US system could be restructured to deliver improved outcomes if you are really interested in this topic.

        2. Other countries tend to use FOBT and sigmoidoscopies as their primary screening tools.

          They use colonoscopies for follow-up tests when FOBT etc detect anomalies.

    2. I’ve had several colonoscopies, had a polyp removed and examined in one. Glad I did. There are some risks, of course, but it seems to me the key to reducing risk is to make sure you pick a truly competent GE, i.e., one who does them very frequently and who has a demonstrably excellent track record of no serious adverse events. People should not overgeneralize from group statistics to those of individual practitioners.

    3. My mother underwent a colonoscopy at age 80 (and you might ask: “Why?” I sure did!) and suffered a perforated colon. So she had an ostomy bag, and elected to forgo the second surgery to remove it. She lived 13 more years with the ostomy bag, and regretted both decisions: First, to have the colonoscopy, and second, not to have then surgery to remove it. And she isn’t the only one I know of who suffered a colon perforation during a colonoscopy; a friend’s mother did also, at about the same time, though she chose to have the ostomy bag eventually removed by another surgery.

      And colonoscopy is only now undergoing a Randomized Control Trial, to determine if it is actually effective. And what the harms are. Because there are many in addition to perforation, including infection and death.

      And breast biopsies are no picnic!!! Mine was worse than the subsequent lumpectomy. But at least I was “lucky” enough to have breast cancer, right?? I wasn’t one of those 8 out of 10 women whose biopsies following a screening mammogram are negative. (And my biopsy was not the result of a screening mammogram.) And I hope I never have to undergo another one, even if it is “negative.”

      These studies are not “skewed” to save money. If any studies, or policies or recommendations, are skewed, it is the ones to show the benefit of or to recommend a screening test or procedure that costs money. This point was clearly made in one of the preceding videos about screening mammograms.

      1. Above a certain age then we should not do diagnostics and intervention (surgery. chemo). After all, everyone will die eventually and so what do you gain by carrying tube and bag and have low quality of life, besides the anxiety and not be able to survive the surgery or chemo itself?

        That “certain age” depends on your health and how long do you think you can expect to live.

      2. Sorry to hear about your mother’s experience. I am shocked a colonoscopy would be recommended at age 80. I assume perforation risk rises with age. Sounds to me like she got bad advice from incompetent doctors.

        1. These procedures are quite lucrative for the physician and the patient bears all the risk. Furthermore, the patient or the patient’s insurer will be expected to pay for the treatment to repair the perforated colon. The advice may have been quite rational therefore, from the physician’s and/or hospital’s perspective.

          Or is that too cynical?

          1. Nah TG sounds about right to me.
            I know of one fitness buff and author here locally in New Mexico. Diagnosed with prostate cancer he advised the docs a complete removal of all the area and a then necessity of permenant catheter and bag and all that then being a reality…a absolute no no….as he made his basic living from sport and performance. Wrote books and mag articles and still does though he is now 80.

            Well go figure….. a operation was performed and he had the result of no cancer for years and years now. But initially he was not offered the option. Not a question perhaps of strict cost here but a question of advanced as opposed to relatively simple procedure.
            He could demand the best as he has the resources. But how many can not and take what they are offered. Not that the docs mean harm but when complicated and a bit of risk is possible as opposed to simple and no risk…how many will be told the former?

            He also was the receipt of a anterior entry hip replacement surgery when generally posterior was the only thing offered generally in this part of the sourthwest. A complete success as well.

            1. For prostate cancer, there is generally no rush. One other thing to keep in mind is that both tests and operations improve over time. I’ve been following the prostate cancer story for about 10 years now. Before too long there should be blood tests that can definitively tell whether one has cancer or not. Unfortunately, current tests are still not that good.

          2. Quite true. I’m pretty cynical too, especially when recommendations come from large medical organizations that invest millions in high tech equipment like robotic surgery machines they need to pay for. My last GP whose small group was bought by a large organization lamented that he no longer had the freedom to decide how to treat his patients. He was also always severely pressed for time and at least once this caused him to make a mistake in my treatment (failed to identify the cause quickly). Fear of being sued is also be a strong motivator for over treatment.

            But the mere fact that there are financial incentives does not entail that the recommended tests are ill advised. To deal with the conflicts, my general philosophy is to preventative tests latter (my first colonoscopy was at age 61, and I only had it then b/c I was about to lose my health insurance) and to spread them out (when I was advised to have a repeat colonoscopy in 5 years, I waited 7; everything was fine, so I doubt I will have another). *The one thing I am convinced of is that anyone contemplating getting a colonoscopy (or any kind of risky procedure or operation) should make sure to go to a demonstrably very skilled and highly experienced doctor. * Find out how many colonoscopies they do, how many perforations, how many deaths, etc. As I am sure you know, *the statistics for populations lump the results of a few highly skilled practitioners in with a large group of incompetent or at best mediocre ones – remember, half of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class. *

            1. Years and years ago I recall going through some medically associated training due to my profession. We were all quite proud of our recent test scores most getting into the nineties. The instructor seeing our pride in that said to us directly…Ok I am very glad most of you have now succeeded in killing only 10% or so of your patients…..
              We are all human and fallible.

  3. I love Dr Greger but really find this video perplexing. 3 years ago, i was diagnosed with stage 1a, grade 8 breast cancer thanks to a mammogram. That means it was tiny but extremely agressive. Is there a chance that my immune system would have healed it withiut intervention? Perhaps. But as a mother of 2, under the age of 50 that is not a risk I would ever, EVER would have have taken. I feel that a mammogram saved my life and am incredibly grateful. I find this review and video disturbing as I am not sure what women will come away thinking. I also feel, respectfully that Dr Greger is stepping out of “nutrition facts” here and that also, makes me uncomfortable. My 2 cents.

    1. This illustrates the problem of deciding what to do based on general population studies. The same point applies to colonoscopies and colon cancer, prostate exams and PSA tests and prostate cancer. My mother-in-law has stage IV colon cancer but never had a colonoscopy – it came as a big shock as she had been very healthy-seeming. if she had had a colonoscopy, she would not waiting to die. Some people lose the bet. It seems to me you did the right thing — aggressive cancer kills, whether breast, prostate or colon cancer.

    2. I echo Monica’s sentiment. LOVE Dr. G but I was also diagnosed under 50 with a tiny but very deadly type (TNBC) of breast cancer.

      I also credit that annual mammogram with saving my life (though I’m still not out of the woods). With my personal experience in mind, I believe that over diagnosis is worth it if it saves people detected with even potentially aggressive deadly types. I guess the real problem is lumping all kinds of breast cancer into one bucket for studies… they are not all the same. We just don’t know which lumps will kill you and which you can live with (with some exceptions like Triple Negative Breast Cancer). Ask my oncologist I could already be dead if it were not for that mammogram!

    3. Monica, I am so sorry about your diagnosis. But one problem with screening mammograms is that they tend to fail to detect rapidly growing aggressive breast cancers at earlier stages. My sister discovered a 2.5 cm stage 2 breast cancer 8 months after a “clean” screening mammogram. This would have been caught “early” in maybe 1 month out of 12. Yet she only has a screening mammogram 1 month out of 12. So, unless she picked the right month, it would have been missed. As it was. She had a 1 in 12 chance of detecting it early.

      I am thrilled that Dr. Greger is doing this video series. As a former research scientist, and having lived with the specter of breast cancer since my mother was first diagnosed almost 60 years ago (it runs in my family), I have done a lot of reading and research about it. And the information presented in these videos is not news to me, but it is information that I think is extremely important to get out into the public. As I think he stated in his first video, one study showed that if presented with all the information about screening mammographies, about 30% would still elect to undergo this test. But 70% would not. My position is that assuming women would make the “wrong” decision if they base it on all the available information and their own personal values is to greatly underestimate the intelligence of women.

      And I am extremely grateful to all the nutrition videos that Nutrition Facts has presented and continues to present. They have helped us to improve our eating habits: my husband was diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer, and I have been with breast cancer. But heart disease is more likely to carry us off. And as Dr. Kim A. Williams, the president-elect of the American College of Cardiology in 2014 said, about his eating a vegan diet: “If I die of heart disease, I would rather it not be my fault.” (e.g. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/)

      1. Hi Dr J,

        You response is really interesting and has given me pause and food for thought.

        As it would happen, I had the flu at the time my mammogram was originally scheduled and then one thing let to another and I ended up having it 6 months late – and that is when they discovered the minuscule mass (0.3 cm). And even then, they saw it mostly because there was some calcification scattered around it. I’m not entirely sure how visible the tumor itself was.

        I have often wondered if I had showed up on time for that mammogram if they would have seen anything at all and if one year later to that original date it would already have spread. I feel incredibly fortunate that I had the mammo precisely when I did, that it was caught and that my children are not motherless. Your post just reinforces that for me so thank you. :-)

        Monica

  4. The third leading cause of death in the US is that caused by medical intervention (iatragenic.) Going to your doctor is potentially more lethal than heart disease or cancer.

    Instead, “Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food.”

    1. Good point and agree as this video a bit attests. But it is still a good idea if one finds oneself due to some medical emergency in a ambulance going to a hospital it is best advised not to get out at the first stop unless that stop be the hospital door.

      Advanced cancer and such many contagious illnesses trauma we need docs and medical intervention. Many things are just to late for diet to solve. It always helps though. .
      It is always buyer beware in todays medical world. Be careful and get multiple opinions.

  5. I am feeling very confused by this video. From what I can understand from this video is that mammograms are more harmful. So how is breast cancer going to be diagnosed? When the tumor is so large one can feel it and possibly it has metastasized?

    1. He’s just giving information that most Dr.’s aren’t giving. It’s up to us to be informed and make a decision based on the information and how we feel about it. There’s risks with regular screenings and risks of not screening, as previous postings from folks who are certain of the benefits of screening.

    2. Maybe your questions will be answered in subsequent videos. I notice that one was title the Pros and Cons of Screening Mammography. This video is only #4 of a series of 14.

    3. To me the video seems clear. For the majority of women, getting a mammogram seems a gamble with the odds stacked against you. For every woman saved, at least another dies, from over-diagnosis and over-treatment, with 2 to 10 women having the quality of their lives severely impacted through undergoing a nightmare of unnecessary and grossly harmful treatments – having their breasts removed, their bodies damaged by radiation and poisoned by chemotherapy, and more than likely, their bank accounts emptied.

      For women who worry about the possibility of breast cancer, especially for women who know they have increased risk, rather than waiting until they have something doctors can diagnosis and then statistically can only harmfully and ineffectively treat, it makes far better sense to prevent the problem in the first place, by eating a diet the research shows will do so.

        1. Jerry

          Thus is just another sales pitch for a bunch of people selling books or other stuff on the internet.

          I doubt if there is a genuine “expert” on anything but marketing, among them.

    4. Linda,

      as others said, wait for more videos and then make your own decision based on the research.

      Sorry, but there is no definitive answer to that issue.

      Health Support Volunteer Adam P.

  6. Well I don’t know the answer and I am just thinking out loud here. For myself and my family, we do no screening for cancer and rely on symptoms checking and this may be a bad decision, I don’t know.

    – Breast cancer rate is on the par with other cancers with lung cancer rate the highest. So if we don’t do screening for some other cancers, why do we do for breast cancer?

    https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

    – Is symptom checking reliable? I.e. by the time you see the symptoms then is it too late, or is there always symptoms at an early stage of cancer?

    – Like Dr G said, there are many false positive and false negative in mammogram, and some cancer tumor will do no harm if we don’t know and leave it alone.

    We need more statistics to make decision.

    1. Jerry, the only reason we have a practice of annual clinical and mammography exams is because the medical community has insisted that “early detection saves lives”… which means we “catch” microscopic tumors that result in mutilating therapies and likewise miss some that can’t be detected in younger, more dense tissues. In short, i am beginning to believe it was all bullshit and did nothing but feather the pockets of the breast cancer industry…

      Other thoughts out there?! I’m angry. Are you?

      1. Sandra, I like to see the statistics on “early detection saves lives”. What is the statistics on people who do have cancer and got detected? What is the statistics on false positive and false negative? What is the statistics on people who survive an intervention versus do nothing, but not quite do nothing but eat as much foods and supplements that are anti cancer.

        I like to get the info to make decision earlier rather than waiting for “that day” and then scramble to make decision.

        I think that my decision lays more on the statistics on false positive, because false negative is the same as doing no test.

      2. “In short, i am beginning to believe it was all bullshit and did nothing but feather the pockets of the breast cancer industry…

        Other thoughts out there?! I’m angry. Are you?”

        Hi Sandra –

        I passed that point over a decade ago. The tactics that the breast cancer industry uses to increase profits – ignoring the enormous cost of human suffering of those misdiagnosed by so doing – does not seem an exception to how our medical industry operates, but the rule.

        If you want to live a long and healthy life, you need to proactively take charge of your own health care. In large part based on the Myth of the Effectiveness of Modern Medicine,” promoted in movies, TV shows, and by the AMA, many people still see the medical system as a kind of safety net, that will fix them up “good as new” should they find themselves in difficulty from their own poor lifestyle choices. But as far as metaphors go, to me a tiger pit with pukka stakes at the bottom, or perhaps a Roach Motel (where you check in but don’t check out ) does a better job of describing what happens to many people who find themselves needing serious disease care and naively trust in our medical system to make things right.

      3. Hi Sandra,

        Share your feelings.
        About three years ago I went on the health through nutrition pathway and over the years shed over 100 lbs and four prescriptions to become medication free at 75. On the way I pick up a case of chronic diarrhea, water in stool but no weight loss. Complaint to physician at an annual checkup netted a referral to a GI specialist where I reported I thought a I had leaky gut and would like to be tested to rule it out. He advised the “white coat” community did not recognize the existence of leaky gut and he would not pursue that line. Instead he recommend to an endoscopic test from mouth to rectum for Crohn’s disease. I refused this risky and National Debt inflating procedure and took my chances with a ½ cup bone broth. In a matter of a week symptoms were noticeably improved encouraging me to “stay the course”. Problem vanished and bone broth has been dropped with no noticeable effect.
        [Switched to a vegan doctor who advised that their experience was similar and that the bone broth could be doing nothing more than providing constipation (though am regular 3X day). Recommendation was not to be concerned as long as no undesired weight loss.]
        The medical care we are being provided is imposing horrific debt on the younger generation which can bankrupting them. And for what? Grossly unnecessary procedures that line the pockets of a self-aggrandizing trade.
        Yeah, I’m pissed off.

  7. I am grateful for this series. Though, yes, there is a sentence in it about how to not “unsettle” women and the truth is that women ARE going to get unsettled either way about this topic.

    The truth is that some women’s lives will be saved and some women will be mutilated by unnecessary procedures and some will see an early warning and might go straight to nutrition and others will go straight to medical and some will be pressured into medical and resent it….

    ALL of these are realities that I read about regularly and I find ALL of it unsettling, except when people reverse it with nutrition. That makes me fascinated, instead of unsettled. That is why I come and watch these videos every day.

  8. Even women who do have breast cancer may not want the extra risk of dying from lung cancer and heart disease and yet we aren’t even allowed to have a nutritional option studied for those of us who would never do radiation or chemotherapy or mastectomy?

    There is still no genuine freedom of choice in medicine and THAT is a problem to me.

    I would wish that Dr. Ornish could be allowed to use those of us who refuse the medical model and see what happens. I know that breast cancer is more deadly, but the fact that men get to see what a nutritional option accomplishes in prostate cancer and we don’t get to have studies, just anecdotal evidence of friends who beat breast cancer with nutrition, is frustrating.

    I guess, I am just going to do vegan and not worry and I will die eventually of something anyway.

  9. I am also going to give a shout out to the researchers, because obviously, finding a new way to differentiate between aggressive cancers and other lumps accurately is what needs to be worked on.

    It seems like having this information, that women die just as often as they are saved, means they need to go back to square one.

    Maybe even some outside the box things.

    I watch videos from archeology finds and from astronomy and from deep sea explorations and the technologies keep improving and getting more and more sensitive in useful ways, and it seems like knowing this may inspire some scientist to figure out how to use something else maybe something, which could be already out there.

  10. Even watching how technology changed during each war….

    If breast cancer is a war, then, someone needs to look at this technology and say, “This is not acceptable” and here is what we need.

    The fact that they already can print organs with 3D printers and are able to have blind people see with their tongues, it just is going to take one passionate person.

  11. Just a personal story, but it speaks to a difficulty of groups involved with cancer at getting to cause.

    My mum back in the day developed breast and eventually thyroid cancer as well. Treated she did survive both.
    My mum had a strict aversion to bugs as a result with a swarm of bees which landed on her as a child..
    My dad in response to the aversion literally soaked any place we lived with chlordane. Both thyroid and breast cancer are correlated to the use/exposure of chlordane.

    Never was she questioned on environmental exposure or diet in any of her medical interactions.
    It is western medicine never looks at cause there is no money in a patient history. Just treat treat treat prescribe prescribe prescribe. That is the bias. In hospital setting a certain number of patients are considered the norm and that does not involve lengthy patient history taking.

    One is discouraged by time constraints from that. As patient history is really the most time consuming.
    This is a example in a way…why advise or consult with a patiient on diet or environmental if a mammogram may provide a clean quick easy revenue grab. A history really is a low revenue grabber by contrast.
    My father in law released following a AMI given a booklet 10 pages or so with cartoons, on diet after a week stay with bypass and all the rest, Of course dead in 2 years. No priority given to diet. Family giving him eggs and bacon in the morning two days after release…..

    So it is in America. Profit oriented health care..

  12. My personal experience suggests environmental exposure may be a significant cause of this thing. The problem being in testing how to determine which is a causative agent?
    Chlordane is now a known. But how many others things perhaps in common use just really never find any suspect of causation and thus no testing for cause?
    We know plant based whole foods helps with any cancer.
    But it reminds me of the macrobiotic crowd of the seventies. One the major leaders of the diet a female born in Japan, did die of breast cancer at a relatively early age. Certainly she ate a PBWFD. But likely checking out some of Dr Greger’s videos I now know one of the seaweeds is known to have a very high level of contaminant and really should be eaten not at all, hijiki or arame I forget which.
    But in any event by my read the WFPB thing did not overrule that consumption as macrobiotics consume bunches of seaweeds always.

    So what to a extend is any of this if we have unknown or known but unrealized causative agents out there? Science being out there but generally not known of. Seems perhaps that may be the most important thing.

    1. To Ron in New Mexico – I agree with you that our environment is poisoning us in many different ways.
      In case you missed it, Dr. G did a video on the link between breast cancer and milk. I don’t have the video handy, but here is a link to the research done in University of California – Davis by a breast cancer researcher. It connects the milk drinking, which houses the Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) with breast cancer. Virtually all of the milk in the USA is contaminated with BLV because the milk is all put in large vats together before it is bottled and sent to stores. It is known that pasturization does not necessarily kill all of the virus in the milk. In the past, it was thought that this BLV did not jump species from cows to humans. This researcher is showing that it does, indeed, jump species and ends up in the cancerous breast tissues of woman (which she detects from resected tissue. Here are some links:

      http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/09/15/bovine-leukemia-virus-breast-cancer/
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28640828
      Here is the nutritionfacts.org link which I just found:
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-role-of-bovine-leukemia-virus-in-breast-cancer/

      This research alone keeps me from consuming dairy. HOpe you find the information useful.

      1. Thank you Ruth. I have read it but now do refresh it. I learn so many things about diet here really some of this just comes and goes in memory. I retain most of the basic principles…don’t drink milk but forget the health rational that health wise prohibits.

        That virus thing with milk is completely astounding and no one literally no one in the general public has ever even heard of it.
        My mum lost a lot of her time of living due to health necessities like that. And I personally suffered as she was not present but in hospital back in that day for long periods of time. Then they kept peoples in more than now. So sad is this thing what they allow us. I have permanant gaps in my psychology present as during my formative years 2 and such she just was not there.Worked around them but they are there.

          1. Yes, a good friend of mine in the UK had it. He was also diagnosed with prostate cancer and colorectal cancer at the same time.

            I don’t know what treatment they gave him but currently he is in the clear with no evidence of cancer. Of course, he is now watching his diet, running and cutting right back on the booze. He.has also lost a lot of weight. Consequently, he looks better now than he did years ago. Far better to do these things before rather than after a cancer diagnosis I think.

            I also wonder if anyone has tried fasting to prevent breast cancer recurrence
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982776/

  13. One thought that popped into my mind is that perhaps we can use specialized technology to detect problems, but then use natural means to do something about it when possible. The actual mammogram doesn’t have side effects, it is the radiation and chemo that do. A positive mammogram could be used as information as to how to clean up one’s diet. For instance, I was diagnosed with an enlarged Prostate, but I refuse to take the drugs that would be used to treat it. Since my PSA is normal, I don’t see any risk in doing this. I follow what Greger stated about consuming Flaxseed and Greens, Tomatoes and Pumpkin Seeds. Likewise, I will continue to get my Colonoscopies every few years to remove any polyps, but I will continue to eat the foods, like Whole Grains and Cruciferous vegetables that might reduce the number of polyps I develop.

    1. Just a personal response, most of my responses are personal ;). I used to have that get up to pee at night thing at least once per night and often at gatherings and such during the day. I am mainly vegan since 1990.

      Whole foods plant based a relatively recent incorporation into my diet over the years with a emphesis on pumpkin seeds and nuts, always I have some pumpkin seeds …..it has totally removed. I virtually never have to get up at all and out and about, it is also no longer a necessity.
      I am completely amazed as most think that a necessity of mens physiology at a older age.
      A diet thing it really is for me..

      How much of our things are diet….., I suspect the vast majority. I guess it could get to bad and one has to ensure treatment but maybe one can complete avoid that necessity 9 times out of 10.

      1. Agreed, Ron. I got rid of acid reflux, nagging nausea and various other symptoms of a general inflammation, just by going WFPB and sticking to it. How I feel now as compared to how I felt before, is proof enough for me. I have no desire to get some sort of medical readout to prove (sic) how good this approach is. It would feel sort of ungrateful, no matter how irrational that sounds.

        1. It is such a shame our medical community and our society in general reinforce this is the way one has to feel as one ages.
          Some docs are now suggesting the normal prescription of statins upon reaching a certain age like 50 with asymptomatic patients. Just out of hand as a preventative like a vitamin.

          Things are so out of whack here in the US.
          I am starting to take nothing for granted.

              1. Jerry

                No, I took a statin long before those articles were published However, it affected my liver functions and I discontinued its use. Now, I use diet and lifestyle to control my cholesterol. A far better choice. However for people who can tolerate them and are unwilling to change their diet etc, the Cochrane Review concluded

                “Of 1000 people treated with a statin for five years, 18 would avoid a major CVD event which compares well with other treatments used for preventing cardiovascular disease. Taking statins did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects such as cancer. Statins are likely to be cost-effective in primary prevention.”
                http://www.cochrane.org/CD004816/VASC_statins-primary-prevention-cardiovascular-disease

                I have no idea where you get your claim about kidneys from. You just made that up as you do so many things

  14. Thank you for that video! I am a breast cancer survivor, diagnosed with DCIS almost 10 years ago. It was found as tiny calcifications on a routine mammogram. I was recommended a lumpectomy with radiation and tomaxafin, but opted for a mastectomy and nothing else. I was not very negligent with my follow-up visits because it maked absolutely no sense to me to continue to radiate an area that was already prone to cancer, and when I had the audacity to ask for an ultrasound to evaluate some cysts, recently, I had to go head to head with the radiologist to get it without also having a mammogram. Three cheers for my Ob/Gyn who ordered the ultrasound!

  15. I had an untrasound done on my breast. And the tech/doctor said I needed to go under the knife. I went to a specialist who did the breast exam with out a machine and said I was fine. It was just my hormones and knotted tissue. My mom said when I was born my breast were like rocks and the doctor told my mom it was nothing to worry about. I never had any issues until I hit my late 30s early 40s. When I started having chest pain. Tgat is when I decided to see a doctor. After my doctor appointment, I randomly read an article in a 1940s-1950s women’s magazine explaining about breast lumps and how the doctor told the lady that this was a common thing that most women have and it is nothing to worry about but to still keep watch on what is going on. Also I notice that the older I’ve gotten the bigger the spongy knotted lumps are. Plus I learned that this does happen to women who never had children, which is me. And also in women who have had children and its not just hormones, it could also be blocked milk ducts.

  16. Thanks so much for providing valuable information on the topic of breast cancer and mammograms. I find NutrionFacts.org to be inspiring and insightful since I’m in the process of dealing with an invasive ductal carcinoma. The plant-based diet approach to healing is quite compelling. I look forward to seeing more videos on this topic.

  17. Absolutely spot on report from the Doc.

    I wish this advice not to keep poking around under the bonnet, but just to live a lifestyle YOU ALREADY KNOW is maximising your chance of powering through whatever might be lurking there, could gain a better foothold than it currently has. Too many people still wanting, like Doubting Thomas, to put a hand in the wound….. just to check……

    I suppose there is no room for faith in this world, but unbelievers might profit from reflecting on the observer phenomenon at the quantum level.

  18. The thing that struck me with an article by Dr McDougall is that breast cancers are not big enough to be detectable by mammos for about seven years. I decided that if it is an aggressive cancer, it will most likely have metastized already. That explained to me why several of my friends who have “done it all” died 10 or eleven years later with bc in their brain or bones. One single cell doubling about every two months…
    I stick to my guns and say NO!

      1. Thank you, Monica, for your excellent point. You are of course correct. Here are the facts, from the American Cancer Society:
        The 5-year relative survival rate for women with stage 0 or stage I breast cancer is close to 100%.
        For women with stage II breast cancer, the 5-year relative survival rate is about 93%.
        The 5-year relative survival rate for stage III breast cancers is about 72%. But often, women with these breast cancers can be treated successfully.
        Breast cancers that have spread to other parts of the body are more difficult to treat and tend to have a poorer outlook. Metastatic, or stage IV breast cancers, have a 5-year relative survival rate of about 22%.
        Still, there are often many treatment options available for women with this stage of breast cancer.

        Thank you for reminding us to stick to the facts. Congratulations on your successful treatment!!

        Lisa S.
        Health Support Volunteer

        1. Thanks for sharing this information, Lisa. Please clarify for me if the statistics are based on women who followed the conventional approach to breast cancer treatment. Do the statistics from the American Cancer Society also include results for those women who chose alternative approaches?

  19. Thank you for this article! I, too, was “bullied” into doing a mammogram, though I and my doctor only wanted an ultrasound, which resulted in 2 doctors telling me I had breast cancer that required surgery, radiotherapy and tamoxifen, and possibly chemo. By chance I was traveling abroad and asked my mother to get me an appointment with the specialist (renowned in her country) who had seen her and he was shocked at what I told him. You don’t have cancer. (Its LCIS) You only need to monitor it every few months, he said. By ultrasound. I thus spent a lot of money (even had to do an MRI) and underwent an awful amount of stress, convinced I was going to die. If I had seen this video before, I would have stuck to my guns regarding the mammogram and would have saved myself a lot of money and angst. Thank you again, Dr. Greger!

    1. Good luck getting an ultrasound without first getting a mammogram that necessitates an ultrasound follow-up. Doctors won’t order it and insurance won’t cover it unless a mammogram comes first and shows the need for an ultrasound follow-up. That has always been my experience.

  20. This post is to the Administration of NutritionFacts.org:

    I am only one of many people, now, who have complained about the actions of a NutritionFacts troll named Jerry Lewis. Today’s line of discussion – almost all of the posts – more than 150 total at this point – are Jerry Lewis arguing with other posters on this site. Jerry Lewis has effectively taken over the dialogue on this site that used to be so pleasurable. After reading through about a third of the dialogue today, attempting to find discussion OTHER THAN Jerry Lewis arguing with people, I finally just gave up as I couldn’t find “normal” dialogue from “normal” people with “normal” topics.

    In the past, I used to come here looking forward to seeing the postings of our regular friends sharing information, sharing ideas, sharing experiences. It was A GREAT PLEASURE! This pleasure is now gone. The pleasure of the dialogue page is now gone. All we get to see if Jerry Lewis bullying his way through the dialogue stream. I now don’t following the dialogue pages and, knowing that the discussion group is now gone, I almost don’t follow the videos anymore as the community is now gone. It is simply, now, one big fat Jerry Lewis argument and bullying session. I’m done with that.

    It REALLY IS TIME for the moderators and the Adminstration of this site to do something about this situation.
    IT’S TIME!

    1. Thanks for your feedback Ruth. We encourage vigorous dialog on this site, and we also appreciate posters such as yourself that point out potential problems with certain types of comments. I have forwarded your comments to the Administrative team who will weigh in all feedback and work to resolve the situation. We appreciate your being part of our community!

      –Lisa
      Health Support Volunteer

    2. Yes Ruth, agree totally with your comments. As I have mentioned before, I emailed NF staffers on several occasions to bring the situation to their attention but their response was lame to say the least. I just don’t think they get it. They ask for funding from us to create what I am sure they hope is a world class website for nutritional info, and we end up with argumentative and abusive trolls running amok in the comment section 24/7.

      The comment section used to be such a real asset to NF.. terrific volunteers and interested medical/science professionals engaging in great conversations or helping to answer questions. These days, the few that remain endure endless rounds of repetitive and often insulting arguments. They deserve better and frankly so does the (paying) public. Get with the program NF!

  21. You could say the same about heart surgery and probably lots of other procedures as well. I had bypass surgery probably unnecessarily as I now believe.
    Instead of being guided to alternative dietary treatments , I was never offered any alternative at the time.
    I wish I knew then what I know now as the surgery changed my life and not for the better.

    1. Mike – I been SO waiting to hear from someone like you who went through surgery without the benefits of this plant-based alternative choice. This WFPB information has been around, now, for DECADES as Dean Ornish, M.D. published this research years and years ago. He thought it would change the way medicine is performed in this country and it has not. Interestingly!, Medicare pays for Dr. Ornish’s heart disease reversal program – but your cardiologist will not tell you about it. AS one of Dr. Esselstyn’s peers stated (in Dr. E’s book), when asked why he doesn’t discuss a plant-based diet for heart disease, “Have you seen my billables?” Meaning, of course, he makes more money doing surgery than advising you on how to keep your health.

      In my opinion, this counts as malpractice. Withholding information that would give you a full set of choices, and especially one that would allow you (potentially) to avoid surgery, is negligence and malpractice. I hate to say this, but this situation of withholding information is only going to change when – I am sorry to say – someone sues their physician. I am not one to advocate for suing someone – it is never the route one wants to take first. But it the way things in our society change the world around us and nudge it in a better direction. Money is a very powerful force. And, just to be fair to the cardiologist who doesn’t counsel you on a WFPB diet, . . some of those doctors are in debt up past their eyeballs and have to work their way out of it. So one can see the conflict there. But it seems to me that nothing less than some form of class action suit is going to be needed to move the needle. If I had surgery with a bad outcome and there was an alternative that I was not told about I’d be a very loud and active voice. I’d be working on disrupting this particular status quo. (which is what we are doing here on this site :-).

      For those people who live in the Kaiser Permanente insurance district (Western USA), they have take a position in their corporate communications stating that a WFPB diet is the healthiest diet and provides information, brochures, and links to healthy sites such as this one and encourages this lifestyle. So there is a minute amount of change occurring. In France, physicians educations are paid for by the government and, when out of school and practicing, their physicians are paid a certain (well enough) salary that allows them to treat without having to worry about “the billables”. A very interesting read on how other countries cover everyone’s medical needs without breaking the bank is discussed in T. R. Reid’s “The Healing of America: the Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, Fairer Health Care”.

      I don’t blame you, Mike, for feeling upset at how you were treated. But until people who have been treated similarly rise up and take action we will continue to get more of the same. Nonetheless, we are all glad you are here now.

  22. I haven’t have a mammography in about 3 years, my OB-GYN thinks I am nuts, lol. I do not have a family history of breast cancer (except one aunt who we are pretty sure got it from hormone replacement therapy), nor do I have BRCA 1 or 2 in the gene pool. I had children by the age of 30, breast feed both, never smoked. The whole DCIS is pretty scary to me, as all doctors want to treat that when there is evidence to leave it alone, just watch it. Further, I told my doctor that considering I do breast self exam, am a RN who is very aware of the specific symptoms of early breast cancer, etc., and that I consider the levels of rads exposure with mammography a risk I am not willing to take….. well you get the picture, but they are not going to. For me and my very low risk of breast cancer per diet and familial and lifestyle, and my own screening by palpation and exam, I do not consider the risk of becoming an unnnecessary patient or exposing my boobs to concentrated ionizing radiation worth the risk. Will be interested to see all the videos.

  23. Thanks for the well researched video! This is a real- and disturbing- eye opener. I’m 52, so this has real practical value to me. Thanks again!

  24. Ok….So i was *hoping* to see a bunch of women’s opinoions on this *highly* touchy subject-to screen or not to screen?! Avoid diagnosis good or bad??? THIS IS CRUCIAL for many women….but almost all the comments are MEN arguing with one another about NOT breast cancer. (TG-you’re great, this board just got usurped too early). I think this might be a reason to have moderators DELETE comments or ask members to move the discussion to another board. Any woman who finds this video 3 months from now will look at the comments and just leave this site. We can all learn a great lesson from the show South Park, by ignoring Trolls, they lose their power–STOP FEEDING HIM. He ruins the board 3x a week =P

    1. Jessica – I am SO with you on being tired of seeing our very own JL troll changing the topic from the video at hand to attacking everything in site on this forum discussion. I have followed what he has said over time and he has freely admitted that his motivation is to attack the basis of this site and all of us who participate here. This is not a person who is interested in genuine debate. But mostly what happens – as you have stated – the entirety of the conversation is usurped, once again, by this troll and the ability of others to enjoy a nice and respectful and sharing conversation get pushed, like dust on your kitchen floor, to the corners. While Lisa Schmidt – in her comment – states that this site encourages vigorous debate, I am going to argue that THAT is not what is happening here. Our troll is behaving in a bullying manner which one can see by the relentless posting. He has freely stated his position on certain health issues which is different that some of the basics discussed here. And he is certainly free to do that. But it is the constant, relentless, bullying and domination of the discussion that is the problem here. Most discussion sites have a “rule” (if you will) about over posting which is designed to interrupt the verbal bullying. If NutritionFacts.org has a position of that ilk they certainly don’t enforce it.
      Another part of the problem here is that if one (and if everyone) ignored JL as you suggest (which I agree with to a point), he, still, does not go away. I have attempted to have discussions on this site with certain individuals – NOT HIM – and made it clear in my posting to whom I was talking. And he STILL bullied my comments. He is relentless and destructive and certainly disrespectful. And numerous people have already complained about this situation. And whether it is JL or anyone else who behaves similarly the NutritionFacts.org website has a problem on its hand which it is ignoring. To the extreme detriment of the great conversations that used to occur here.

      NUTRITIONFACT.ORG – WAKE UP!

  25. I also meant to say “thank you’ to Tom Goff for your consistent support of the ideas presented here. Left unchallenged, the message of this site gets watered down and the dissemination of great science performed by many great educated accomplished researchers gets sabotaged. It is important for people who want this really excellent scientifically-based information (I am a scientist and DO want it) be able to get it without constant sabotage. So thank you TG for all the times you stand for us all. You are in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t position but I, personally, appreciate your diligence. I just wish NutritionFacts.org could see the problem here.

  26. Speaking of information and misinformation….

    This recently reported study suggests that nuts and seeds, as well as meat, eggs and dairy, can
    enhance growth of a certain type of breast cancer (in rats).

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-scientists-halt-breast-cancer.html

    It seems that Dr. Greger is often not convinced by rodent studies, but… I would very much like
    to know his (and other qualified folks’) thoughts on this study and it’s findings involving nuts and seeds.

    Thanks!

  27. Hi ~ wouldn’t it be better for women to check out Thermograms or even the AMAS (Anti-Metastatic Antibody Screen) test on a yearly basis? The technology for both has been around for decades.. Since cancer is a tissue destructive disease or a disease that “grows” tissues and/or tumors, I would think a Thermogram would show that tissue activity sooner than a mammogram and it would not create the dangerous and regular radiation exposure. It would be lovely if you would address that as an option for women rather than the smash and glow test. We are all aware that radiation in itself can cause cancer, especially when it is beamed into tissues. As women we aren’t given many alternatives by our medical practitioners. .

  28. Hello Dr Gregor and Nutrition facts,

    I am confused… I am 48 years old, never did a mamogram, I see my obgyn once a year, and I do self examination as reccomended and discoverted a small mass-cyst-something(?) in one brest. The size of a pea
    I decited to make an apointment with a doctor in the field, which will happen next week.
    Today I started waching many of your videos on mamograms and brest cancer and I am confused about what to do.
    Are there other ways to know if something is cancer or not?

    If you can help me be more oriented…
    If not thanks for all your great work

    Julie

  29. Hi I’m a RN health support volunteer with nutritionfacts. Thanks for your great question. This is definitely a challenging topic Dr. Greger has taken on. A thing to know is these videos are addressing screening mammograms. Which means you are doing a mammogram on someone with no symptoms, no complaints, and potentially low risk for breast cancer. If you have found a lump or have breast pain or some cause for concern, then you are talking about a diagnostic mammogram. It’s all about the risk benefit ratio. And as these videos demonstrate, doing a screening mammogram on a woman with low risk for breast cancer and no complaints, may have more risk than benefit. But that may not the same risk benefit ratio as a diagnostic workup on a lump that was found. Other diagnostic tests including ultrasound, biopsy, and breast MRI. So I would go ahead and speak with your physician and ask for an honest layout of risk versus benefits of any recommended further testing.

    All the best,
    NurseKelly

    1. Thankyou verry much NurseKelly(and Nutritionfacts) for your kind and informative reply.
      You shed some light on this complicated topic.
      I am now better informed and able to make better decisions.

  30. I do honestly wish people would only leave comments relevant to the subject of the video or article on the page. This video was extremely upsetting to me, as it probably is to any woman who listens to it. Yet when I went to the comments, hoping to find the reactions and thoughts of other women, all that I found was abundant, unrelated, childish back and forths. Considering the seriousness and far reaching implications of the topic covered, I find the choice to post those comments here specifically, to be thoughtless, and insensitive. That we are so misinformed about the science on such a life touching subject, one that often ends in the breast mutilation, severe pain, and ongoing fear of women, is rattling to the core.

    Dr. Greger, once again I thank you sincerely for researching, and rendering vital information accessible and understandable to us. You may not be perfect ;) but you are no doubt a beacon of light in the darkness.

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This