Has anyone decided not to go for a routine mammogram?

[hattie43]

I'm curious to know . I have mine next week and will attend but last time was a nightmare as I was recalled and health anxiety went through the roof . Luckily no cancer . I was reading that about 30% of women don't attend Apparently mammograms don't pick up everything and aren't foolproof , but surely they are better than nothing .

@WiseUpJanetWeiss those links are all to major medical and academic journals, very weird. The Nordic Cochrane link is from @FluffyHamster Thanks for telling me.

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 Every time you try to exert control over this thread I will remind you that you do not have any. So why not drop it?

The only other aspects of my posts directed to you were refutations of your baseless accusations. Although if you were interested in the literature I am sorry the links to major journals appear compromised. I will have to relink in the morning

It’s my phone, not the links I’m sure. Will read them when I have the laptop out.

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 also said she had problems. I probably need to give old fashioned links in the morning.

@poetryandwine im not exerting any control whatsoever. I’m not forcing you or anyone else to post on this thread. I am relying to posts that are directed at myself and ask questions of myself. I am also defending myself against accusations regarding my posts which are entirely false.
Apparently freedom of speech has also based you by.

You do need to read thread topic headlines and post accordingly. As I have repeatedly said, you would be much better off, and reach a wider audience by creating your own thread as to why women should go to screening. Neither you or other posters to whom the same suggestion has been made - and not just by myself, other posters have suggested the same action too, have bothered to make an effort to create an alternative thread.

I am on the correct topic and will happily stay answering and responding to any posts directed to myself. If you don’t like that stop directing posts at me!

Just for clarity GPs don’t get paid for mammogram referrals.
Women are given appointments by the breast screening service, they don’t need referring

Why would I create a thread ‘as to why women should go to screening’ when I have not recommended this? If you disagree, find the quotation.

’You do need to read the topic headlines and post accordlingly ‘. I am quite satisfied that I am well within the scope of the discussion.

dcis411.com/tag/doctors-paid-to-persuade/

BMJ including interesting commentary from medics

@Utedriver and @ArcticSkewer this is very interesting. For those who have not read the link, a GP’s CCG was incentivising GPs to promote breast screening with cash payments. Apparently this was linked to a CRUK scheme for improving screening uptake, but CRUK, wrote a Rapid Response to the journal dissociating itself from the payments scheme.

For anyone who values women’s right to make their own choices (as I do, despite unevidenced statements to the contrary occurring now with some regularity) this is very disturbing.

Here are the old fashioned, unlinked references to the studies I quoted above, in order.
Some PPs said their phones were warning against the links.

1. Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women , Cancer, v 126, Issue 13, p 2971-2979, 11 May 2020
2. Incidence of advanced-stage breast cancer in regular participants of a mammography screening program: a prospective register-based study, BMC Cancer, (2020) 20:174
3. Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial, BMJ, (2014) 348:g366

Again I am interested by what we are all reading: three women over treated for every lethal cancer caught by screening mammogram and treated, vs expert opinion consistently giving an over treatment rate of 10-30%, occasionally 50%. I think we need a medical statistician or HCP to interpret this for us.

@poetryandwine because as I’ve said before. This is a why you didn’t attend screening. It’s not even a thread asking for and against arguments. Its not a why you should attend thread. Something that you are clearly passionate for women to do. Your passion would be so much more useful in starting a new thread where such information could be much more easily accessed by those trying to decide based on science.
Interesting that one of your studies quoted is one which I’ve also posted (as have others) and been told it’s pseudo science and far too old to even be trusted by several posters and is one that backs up other posters as to why they have followed the science and decided against testing. But apparently it’s ok if someone else posts it…….. bizarre.

I have a very, very high pain threshold (managed back to back labour with no pain relief) and a mammogram was the most painful thing I've ever experienced. I have also had major surgery twice without complaint.

I think mammograms may be relatively painless for women with enough breast tissue to fit on the plate. But believe me, they are not designed for women with small (or, in my case, tiny) breasts. I would have to be knocked out to have another one.

Apologies to everyone reading boring, false repetitions about me. I can’t even parse @Alphabet1spaghetti2 ’s last sentence grammatically. My best guess is that she is trying to say something about the Canadian study that I did credit her for posting a link to a link to. I don’t recall anyone on this thread calling it pseudo science. It is older, that’s all.

It showed a slight but not significant overall improvement in 25 yr BC mortality amongst those in regions of Canada where screening was offered. However 25 yr survival for those with tumours that could not be felt at the time they were caught by screening were much higher than for the others with BC at nearly 80%. What to make of this was not discussed in the paper and I think some expert knowledge is needed for interpretation.

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 I suspect I am not the only person getting bored hearing about my nonexistent passion, and your most recent post once again has you attempting to dictate limitations for this thread. How is that not an attempt to control? Let MN admins do that if you are so sure you are right

@WelHong I am so sorry about your experience. I think mammograms and tiny breasts can be a significant problem, in terms of pain.

Still not read the papers - those are not links, just citations - but will try to do so. Just commenting on:

However 25 yr survival for those with tumours that could not be felt at the time they were caught by screening were much higher than for the others with BC at nearly 80%.

It seems trivially obvious to me that early diagnosis made only through screening will artificially improve the 25 year survival rates, because a significant number of those cancers would never have been gone on to be diagnosed had the screening not happened.

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 I appreciate that this thread was originally about reasons for not attending screening, and we’re technically on the same side of this argument, but threads move on.

I’m really uncomfortable with thread police, unless there is bullying or manifestly dangerous/illegal advice.

@WiseUpJanetWeiss I completely agree with you that a proportion of those tumours that can’t be felt seem very likely to be amongst those that would never cause trouble. The issue is that we on this thread may not know how to measure it. Researchers are surely as aware as we are of the NHS statement, which I believe, that 3 indolent tumours are found for every life that is saved through screening. And they value their integrity.

Yet they consistently to this day claim an over treatment rate of 10-30% or occasionally up to 50%. Nothing like a ratio of 3:1. So it would be good to know what the definition of ‘over treatment’ is and why this def was chosen. I was disappointed that the Canadian researchers did not pursue the point above, which they called significant.

I could not find a different linking format, sorry about that.

PS The other two studies I cited have British lead authors

@poetryandwine then stop tagging me if you don’t want me to reply. Very simple’s. And no you didn’t credit me with anything. You just dismissed anything and everything I’ve said. I do apologise for your own inability to be able to understand my posts, even though that’s a you problem, not my problem whatsoever.

@WiseUpJanetWeiss

yep, and there have been quite a few bullies on this thread, which is so disappointing. I won’t back down from a bully in real life or on the internet.

I did credit you, @Alphabet1spaghetti2 ,yesterday at 18.41:

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 linked to a BCAction article which in turn links to doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g366

If you want me to stop tagging you, you will need to stop making misleading statements about me.

@poetryandwine i have not made any misleading statements about you.

As I’ve said before, if you don’t want me to keep posting on this thread in reply to you - stop tagging me and stop asking me questions or blaming me for things I haven’t done. Same goes for anyone else. It is a very simple concept!!

See my last post,@Alphabet1spaghetti2 It included the quotation where you said to me

And no you didn’t credit me with anything. You just dismissed anything and everything I’ve said.

I followed this with a cut and paste from yesterday where I did so credit you. The statement that I did not credit you was therefore misleading - worse, it was untrue.

@poetryandwine no you didn’t credit me with anything. Unless you are going to include the reference to my saying your links were flagged as dangerous. Which whilst a ‘credit’ isn’t exactly what you are inferring (I would add a head tilt here in real life, but I can’t find an emoji to post, so will just have to add the description instead).
but I guess you will just attempt to flame
for the use of the word inferring as well.

@Alphabet1spaghetti2 above is what I wrote at 16.28 today. This is now the third posting of credit I gave to you. I ask sincerely, what problem are you having acknowledging that?

The fact that neither your phone nor that of @WiseUpJanetWeiss (and she and I get along fine) liked my links is why I posted citations rather than links this morning, although I have not encountered that trouble before. I routinely use these links with colleagues.

Why would I object to the use of any form of the word ‘infer’?

@poetryandwine because you object to every single thing about me on this thread. Just re read the thread and your replies. You don’t even want me posting!!

I admit that I am only human and did miss your 18:41 post yesterday. Probably because I don’t scroll back quite so far through all the other posts! Oops my bad, and yes I am sorry for that. I guess I got distracted by life, work etc. So yes, sorry about that.