[DaryLLL]

This is probably a q for the over 40 crowd. I am pushing 50 and have only had one. I had a pea sized lump a few yrs ago. I had a mammo and an ultrasound. By the time I went in for the mammo, the lump had shrunk. I could still feel it, but the tech could not!!!<br><br>
My mom has had a few episodes of these lumps, which are just fluid filled cysts. She gets a mammo every yr. At one point her dr told her to quit coffee, Coke and chocolate. But after 2 yrs of that, dr said it was OK to resume, connections to lumps were spurious.<br><br>
So, that was my own exp with mammos. I do have a med checkup every yr with a pap smear, blood tests for various things. My cholesterol and blood pressure are excellent.<br><br>
I am not particularly concerned about breast cancer. I nursed for 10+ yrs. Do no smoke, fairly healthy diet, filtered water, etc. No breast cancer in my family.<br><br>
Somehow going in and getting your breast squeezed in a vice seems unhealthy to me.<br><br>
Any opinions?

 

[chevy974]

My mothr a Breast cancer survivor 2 times equalling over 11 yrs. HEr lumps were deteched by her but the Mammo didnt find them they told her she was fine. An ultrasound found them. My mother no longer has Mammo says that if there was a lump there by the time they squezzed her to death the lump would probably spread from being smashed. She has Ultrasounds of her breast.<br><br>
I found lumps about 6 mo ago and had ultrasound as well. I am 30 and have never had a mammogram. I am not sure that i will have one. I am still nursing as well . I am healthy dont smoke etc but i do have history my mother is the only one in the family.<br><br>
So I like you am unsure if i will have a mammo or just have the Us<br><br>
AMy

 

[SagMom]

I'm coming up to 41 and haven't had a mammogram. I'm simply not convinced that they do any good or that they are harmless.<br><br>
I should add that I'm healthy, nursed 10 yrs (and counting) there's no hx of breast cancer in our family and I've no risk factors. (Maybe if none of this was true, I'd feel differently.)

 

[pamamidwife]

I don't believe mammograms are the best way to screen women for breast cancer. For that less than 1% of fast-growth cancers, it could be (if you had it done at the right time), but I believe that loving our breasts and doing self breast exams will tell us more about our bodies than subjecting them to radiation.<br><br>
Still, for women who will not touch their breasts, I suppose it could be a good thing.<br><br>
I do not plan on having any mammograms done. If I find a lump, I will choose ultrasound and a fine needle biopsy. It amazes me when women find lumps and the first thing they do is get a mammogram - uh, the mammogram is NOT diagnostic and will only subject your lump to radiation.<br><br>
I think the first step is really loving your breasts. Honoring them, appreciating them, holding them. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
I like Susun Weeds book "Breast Cancer? Breast Health!"

 

[malamamama]

I am 42 and I don't plan to do mammograms. I will stay open to other methods, but for now self breast exams work for me.

 

[pamamidwife]

Yeah, but with the normal growth cancers, catching it early does NOT improve outcome. This has been shown over and over in studies and it seems that it never makes it to general knowledge.<br><br>
By catching it "earlier", it does not mean that you'll survive more than if it was felt first then diagnosed. It is very rare to have the sort of cancer that spreads so quickly that a mammogram (and it has to be timed just right) will improve your survival rates.<br><br>
Still, I believe that there are a whole lot of women out there who do NOT touch their breasts or do breast exams, and for them mammograms may be beneficial. I just know that by radiating my breasts every 2 years or so, I'll bet my risk of getting breast cancer in 20-30 years will increase. The radiation does not leave your body.<br><br>
Then again, I'm kind of a freak in that I would not opt for chemotherapy as my first line of defense against a cancer.

 

[fyrflymommy]

pamamidwife: you're not a freak. i wouldn't get chemo either.

 

[member234098]

pamamidwife:<br><br>
You are not a freak - I , also, would never do chemotherapy.<br><br>
I am fifty. I have never had a mammogram.<br><br>
I think the radiation they put in your breasts cause more cancer than is prevented by detecting it early.<br><br>
I have had four children and breastfed them each for at least three years. I never took the PILL. I have had neither miscarriages nor abortions. I have no history of breast cancer in my family on my mom or my Father's side of the family. I eat a diet low in animal fats and exercise regularly. I started my periods at age thirteen. I do not and will not use hormones for the menopause.<br><br>
I feel that I am low risk.<br><br>
That said, I do do self-examination.<br><br>
I read about the wife of Bob Guiccione, who died of breast cancer. She took excellent care of herself. She had regular mammograms. When she was first diagnosed, she was given a prognosis of three months to live. She decided to use alternative therapies for herself as Hydrazine Sulfate IV's. It just "galloped" through her body! She was able to live two and one half years after the initial diagnosis.<br><br>
Very sad!<br><br>
Everyone must do what is correct for them.

 

[AnnMarie]

I've had one because of a lump I have in my breast and it didn't even find it. Neither did an ultrasound. You can feel it but neither would pick it up. I don't plan on having them done ever year. I'm only 31, but even when I'm 40+ I won't do it. You have a risk of getting cancer from the xray itself.

 

[DaryLLL]

Thanks for the responses. Anybody else have opinions?

 

[malamamama]

I am 42 am leaning away from any mammograms for many of the reasons stated here. A friend suggested that instead of a mammogram to do some sort of test with laser. Does anyone know what this is about? She thought it to be much safer.

 

[bebe luna]

An alternative to the mammogram is the thermogram. The thermogram is a form of medical examination using thermal imaging instead of the potentially harmful and carcinogenic radiation.<br>
Here are some thermogram and breast exam links:<br><a href="http://www.premier-acupuncture.com/pharmacy/physioscan/breast.htm" target="_blank">http://www.premier-acupuncture.com/p...can/breast.htm</a><br><a href="http://www.infaneeta.com/thermography.html" target="_blank">http://www.infaneeta.com/thermography.html</a><br><a href="http://www.gsmcweb.com/Breast%20Thermography%202.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gsmcweb.com/Breast%20Thermography%202.htm</a>

 

[AmyB]

I am 42 and I dont do mammograms.<br><br>
This book has a good explaination of why mammogram screening is a bad idea:<br>
Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You<br>
by Gerd Gigerenzer<br><br>
And this article describes a kind of mystique that has grown up around breast cancer:<br>
WELCOME TO CANCERLAND.<br>
Author(s): Ehrenreich, Barbara<br>
Source: Harper's Magazine; Nov2001, Vol. 303 Issue 1818, p43, 11p<br><br>
Screening healthy populations means that most "cancer" that is detected is a false positive. That means that many healty women are subjected to unnecessary biopsy, worry and further testing.<br><br>
What's worse is that when docs take credit for "curing" breast cancer by early detection they are often treating conditions that would never have spread or gotten worse. In other words, a lot of the "survivors" would have survived just fine without any medical intervention.<br><br>
--AmyB

 

[member234098]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;"><i>Originally posted by AmyB</i><br><b><br><br>
What's worse is that when docs take credit for "curing" breast cancer by early detection they are often treating conditions that would never have spread or gotten worse. In other words, a lot of the "survivors" would have survived just fine without any medical intervention.<br><br>
--AmyB</b></td>
</tr></table></div>
Thisis exactly what I heard Dr. Mendelsohn said nearly twenty years ago.<br><br>
I believe this statement is true of almost all cancers.

 

[DaryLLL]

Thanks, all y'all for books, links and affirmations for my gut instinct.

 

[Arduinna]

I;m 39 and never had a mammogram. Although the lack of "risk factors" for breast cancer has nothing to do with it. From what I've read the vast majority of women who get breast cancer had no family history and most had no risk factors. I'm not afraid of chemo anymore either, I've done it and it saved my life. I can honestly say I would be dead if not for the chemo I had. In fact my (non reproductive) cancer was already stage three when I was dx and Drs only gave me a 30% chance of survival. I'd much rather live and let my dd grow up with a mother than die because I refused treatment. Anyway, that was slightly OT. I agree with Pam, I don't feel that mammograms save lives. Fast spreading cancers are difficult to cure regardless of when they are found. They have low remission rates and high recurrence rates in general. I wouldn't use them as a deciding factor in choosing a screening method.