 |
More on this subject
The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry (39).
Five radiologists
have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS promotes
the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines
and films,
including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and
Piker. The mammography industry also conducts research for the
ACS and its grantees,
serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. DuPont
also: is
a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program;
sponsors
television shows and other media productions touting mammography;
produces
advertising, promotional, and information literature for hospitals,
clinics, medical
organizations, and doctors; produces educational films; and, of
course, lobbies
Congress for legislation promoting availability of mammography
services. In
virtually all its important actions, the ACS has been and remains
strongly linked
with the mammography industry, while ignoring or attacking the
development of
viable alternatives (39).
ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography
centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best
hope against
breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph
of two
women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early
detection
results in a cure "nearly 100 percent of the time." An
ACS communications
director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, admitted in an
article published
by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal Cancer, "The
ad isn't based
on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you
can to get
women in the door. You exaggerate a point. . . . Mammography today
is a lucrative
[and] highly competitive business" (39).
NEEDED REFORMS
Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting
women by
run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries,
with the
complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and
the rollover
mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography
screen-ing
industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators
and
women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they
care about
women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk
factors of breast
cancer, let alone other cancers.
REFERENCES
1. Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major
Proven Preventable
Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility,
San Francisco, 1995.
2. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast
Cancer Prevention Program,
Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.
3. Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer
1992, pp. 49– 52.
4. National Academy of Sciences– National Research Council,
Advisory Committee.
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D.
C., 1972.
5. Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia.
J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. 86( 21): 1571– 1572, 1994.
6. Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia.
N. Engl.
J. Med. 326( 20): 1357, 1992.
7. Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast
cancer, and treatment
of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338– 346.
8. Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast
compression.
Lancet 340: 122, 1992.
9. Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement
feud rages on.
Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1.
10. Vogel, V. G. Screening younger women at risk for breast cancer.
J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. Monogr. 16: 55– 60, 1994.
11. Baines, C. J., and Dayan, R. A tangled web: Factors likely
to affect the efficacy of
screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 91( 10): 833– 838,
1999.
12. Laya, M. B. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity
and sensitivity
of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88( 10): 643– 649,
1996.
13. Spratt, J. S., and Spratt, S. W. Legal perspectives on mammography
and self-referral.
Cancer 69( 2): 599– 600, 1992.
14. Skrabanek, P. Shadows over screening mammography. Clin.
Radiol.
40: 4– 5, 1989.
15. Davis, D. L., and Love, S. J. Mammography screening. JAMA 271(
2): 152– 153, 1994.
16. Christiansen, C. L., et al. Predicting the cumulative risk
of false-positive mammo-grams. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 20): 1657– 1666,
2000.
17. Napoli, M. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: The hidden pitfalls
of cancer screening.
Am. J. Nurs., 2001, in press.
18. Baum, M. Epidemiology versus scaremongering: The case for humane
interpretation
of statistics and breast cancer. Breast J. 6( 5): 331– 334,
2000.
19. Miller, A. B., et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2:
13-year results of a
randomized trial in women aged 50– 59 years. J. Natl.
Cancer Inst. 92( 18): 1490– 1499,
2000.
20. Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion
and harm in
cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92( 16): 1280– 1282,
2000.
21. Napoli, M. What do women want to know. J. Natl. Cancer
Inst. Monogr. 22: 11– 13,
1997.
22. Lerner, B. H. Public health then and now: Great expectations:
Historical perspectives
on genetic breast cancer testing. Am. J. Public Health 89( 6):
938– 944, 1999.
23. Gotzsche, P. C., and Olsen, O. Is screening for breast cancer
with mammography
justifiable? Lancet 355: 129– 134, 2000.
24. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference
Statement. Breast
cancer screening for women ages 40– 49, January 21– 23,
1997. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 7– 18, 1997.
25. Ross, W. S. Crusade: The Official History of the American
Cancer Society, p. 96.
Arbor House, New York, 1987.
26. Hall, D. C., et al. Improved detection of human breast lesions
following experimental
training. Cancer 46( 2): 408– 414, 1980.
27. Smigel, K. Perception of risk heightens stress of breast cancer.
J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85( 7): 525– 526, 1993.
28. Baines, C. J. Efficacy and opinions about breast self-examination.
In Advanced
Therapy of Breast Disease, edited by S. E. Singletary and G. L.
Robb, pp. 9– 14. B. C.
Decker, Hamilton, Ont., 2000.
29. Leight, S. B., et al. The effect of structured training on
breast self-examination search
behaviors as measured using biomedical instrumentation. Nurs.
Res. 49( 5): 283– 289,
2000.
30. Worden, J. K., et al. A community-wide program in breast self-examination.
Prev.
Med. 19: 254– 269, 1990.
31. Fletcher, S. W., et al. How best to teach women breast self-examination:
A randomized control trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 112(10): 772– 779,
1990.
32. Associated Press. FDA approves use of pad in breast exam. New
York Times, December 25, 1995, p. 9Y.
33. Gehrke, A. Breast self-examination: A mixed message. J.
Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(14):
1120– 1121, 2000.
34. Thomas, D. B., et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination
in Shanghai:
Methodology and preliminary results. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89:
355– 365, 1997.
35. Baines, C. J., Miller, A. B., and Bassett, A. A. Physical examination:
Its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian National
Breast Screening Study. Cancer 63: 1816– 1822, 1989.
36. Lewis, T. Women's health is no longer a man's world. New
York Times, February 7,
2001, p. 1.
37. Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., and Wall, C. Correspondence.
J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93(5): 396, 2001.
38. Kuroishi, T., et al. Effectiveness of mass screening for
breast cancer in Japan. Breast
Cancer 7( 1): 1– 8, 2000.
39. Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest "non-profit" institution.
Int. J. Health Serv. 29( 3): 565– 578, 1999.
Excerpted from “Dangers
and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe,
Effective and Practical Alternative”,
by Samuel S. Epstein, Rosalie Bertell,
and Barbara Seaman, International Journal of Health Services, Volume
31, Number 3, 2001
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
c/o University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health, M/C 922
2121 W. Taylor Street
Chicago, IL 60612
epstein@uic.edu
|
