The Many Myths of Breast Cancer Screening

Hello bOObs Bloggettes:

Today we’ll look at some of the myths of breast cancer (BC) screening and how these myths most likely came to be.

Just considering mammography, there are, to name a few:  myths regarding radiation amounts (much higher than we’re told); misstatements such as “mammography is early detection” when in fact it is really “early stage detection”; misperceptions that mammograms don’t induce breast cancer (actually they’re quite capable of this, per the literature); mistruths that 3D mammograms are lower in radiation than 2D mammograms (actually 3D is twice the amount of 2D if the facility doesn’t use a certain software — and most facilities do not); and falsehoods that most BC are hereditary (this one scares many women, but in reality, only about 5% are genetic, per the Am. Cancer Society). All of these myths have been written about in detail in my past blogs.

But how do these myths develop into soundbites well-circulated throughout medicine? According to several doctors I’ve interviewed, it seems that someone somewhere comes up with these brilliant soundbites that are quickly taken up by medical school professors, medical-affiliated associations, and even our federal government, all who spread them far and wide.

So what is the outcome of this? If someone, like a doctor in this case, hears the same thing over and over from trusted entities (as well as from their colleagues) these myths soon become “facts” — albeit not based on literature evidence.

What’s really interesting is that some of the myth spreaders mentioned above have entire pages on their websites dedicated to “mammogram myths” — even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [ https://www.fda.gov/consumers/womens-health-topics/4-mammography-myths ] who is in charge of regulating mammography. The FDA’s webpage contains my personal favorite myth about mammograms being “low-dose radiation” — when it’s anything but that. The FDA says that getting a mammogram is “like getting an X-ray.” Well, yes, that’s because it IS an X-ray. But in reality, the absorbed radiation dose to the breast is like getting at least 100 times that of a chest X-ray (see my blog on this). Is that what you as a patient would consider “low-dose” radiation?  So these entities try and assuage a woman’s fears by trying to bust myths, myths that are based on the untruths they helped create in the first place.

In the words of Shakespeare: “[They] doth protest too much, methinks.”

This is why my film “bOObs” took breast cancer screening “myths” called out by various entities and turned them on their face saying, “Er, no, actually those aren’t myths and here’s why…” and then followed up by busting their myths with their own “evidence-based” literature citations.

But why would these entities go to the trouble to do all of this, you ask? Because by doing this, these entities are sowing doubt in the minds of their readers, be it physicians or patients, as a way to control the medical narrative. It also allows many doctors — who sadly no longer have the time to do the type of fact-checking research I’ve undertaken — to say, “See? So-and-so entity says it’s a myth so it must be!” and go about their job feeling like they’ve upheld their hippocratic oath to “do no harm.”

I know this might all sound a bit harsh, but this is what doctors themselves are telling me — and it’s also why physicians don’t like being challenged by their patients. Have you noticed how oftentimes doctors bristle when you ask them pointed questions based on sound facts? I would strongly recommend preparing for any important medical appointment ahead of time by pursuing the internet, listing questions to ask your doctor, and not backing down if they bristle when you ask them. You have a right as a patient to answers and Informed Consent for procedures based on facts, not myths.

It appears that patients are finally starting to get a wee suspicious about medicine in general — and they should be. With all the recent problems in medicine such as the Opioid epidemic (which was essentially created by some pharmaceutical companies for greedy profit), and huge lawsuits over medicines such as Vioxx which killed over 50,000 people before a whistle was blown on the “overlooked” safety issues  [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-vioxx-settlement/merck-agrees-to-pay-4-85-billion-in-vioxx-settlement-idUSL0929726620071109], how can we trust what’s being told to us as patients?

To that point, two editors of the top five medical journals came out with some scathing announcements a few years back. One sitting editor at the time estimated that “perhaps half” of the medical literature “may simply be untrue” due to such things as conflicts of interest in research (keep in mind that the integrity of the literature is what “evidence-based medicine” relies on). The other, a former journal editor, also said that the literature was no longer reliable and, because of that, she said patients can’t trust their own doctors or “medical guidelines.” These two statements from highly respected sources should send shivers up the spine of every doctor and patient out there — and kudos to these brave doctors for finally coming forward with the truth.

BOTTOM LINE: How can we have true medical Informed Consent if we don’t have all the correct information upon which to offer our consent? Even the research our doctors are basing their advice on is faulty. This needs to change! Together we are strong.

Blog at you soon, thanks for reading and helping to spread the word!  (Please see the “share” links below.)  And we’d love to hear comments from you! (see below as well)

Stay healthy,

Megan

Megan Smith, M.S.
Director, bOObs: The War on Women’s Breasts

waymarkproductions.com