First ever mammogram tomorrow terrified of it

Thanks Sue, in this country normally 50 to 70, age range being extended and will now be 47 to 73, am 49 and as invites for my age group are random, feels being experimented on to add to everything

I'll try and look at it that way. Thanks

Manual manipulation by mammography to get breasts into right position was painful. She said I had tender breasts, managed it but by end nearly fainted so had to be sat down. As when faint have a low threshold to a fit, I'm epileptic, not sure will bother again as this was a major part of my fear and has come true

The "purpose" is only relevant if the actual facts support it. But that isn't the case because the mantra of "early detection=saving lives" through mammography hasn't resulted in a notable reduction of breast cancer mortality but instead it has led to a situation where the test causes more harm than good to most women (sources: Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy by Peter Gotzsche and The Mammogram Myth by Rolf Hefti).

Because the majority of women only have awareness" of the pro-mammogram messages disseminated by the big medical business (with most mammogram-favorable "studies" sponsored by them) few know what the real facts are. Example, very few women understand or know the fact that a lot of breast cancer "survivors" are victims of harm instead of receivers of benefit.

 

Well if not for my mammogram having found two tumours then maybe I may not be here. They have saved lives, and all for it. The benefit for me was life. This is my opinion and proud yo support mammograms.

I tend to agree just having found a breast dimple myself in January 2014 which led to chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy I don't know whether attendance for a mammography would have found the tumour more quickly or not.  And of course there are now the follow up mammographies which I feel I cannot decline. Prior to this episode I did not attend for mammography because I found the procedure hell.  If I decide to go, I will be taking the advice of Karen007 and take painkillers beforehand.

Well done Pat for speaking up about the harms of mammograms. So many women walk into these screening tests without finding out anything about them, and just blindly follow all the propaganda. Readers may also like to search on Michael Baum's name, who has also provided much balanced information on the subject, and also the organsation Sense about Science.

Do please find out all you can before going for a mammogram. They are entirely optional, and there is a real risk of getting harmful treatment for finding something quite harmless on the mammogram.

Thank you for your fabulous post that may deter women from having this useful service. Had I not gone for a mammogram, my 'c' (still can't bring myself to say the word) would still be undetected as it was not palpable. Because of this I am now having life saving surgery on Thursday. I do hope no-one takes notice of your post as it is most DEFINATELY a life saver both to myself and my mum who is a 10 year clear survivor with many thanks to the mammogram. I can't explain how furious I am at the negativity for something SAVING MY LIFE!

The literature I received here in Scotland prior to my breast screening clearly stated the pros and cons of breast screening. I understood that I may end up receiving treatment for a cancer that may have gone undetected and never bothered me. I clearly understood this when welcoming the mammogram (due to a family history). Why do you say the majority of women only have awareness of the pro-mammogram messages? Is this literature not disseminated throughout the UK?

So some people may have surgery or treatment when they might not have needed it, a shame but not the end of the world - however, what about those women who definately did need treatment and only found out via a mammogram?

You state that the test 'causes more harm than good to most women'. What do you mean by that? That for every 1 person whose life is saved, two may have uneccessary treatment such as a biopsy or radiation etc? If so I would gladly be one of those who may have 'unnecessary' treatment should it save someone else's life.

 

I got a leaflet that clearly set out the pros and cons including unecessary treatment and worry. I live in England near London to be more precise

I went for my 1st screening today, was umming and amming about it as have read stuff about it.  I think we just have to all go for it.  What Pat was saying is actually correct, its the same with cervical screening you can get false positives etc etc. meaning that roughly 17 out of a 1000 women will have surgery/treatment for something that may have never turned into anything.  I understand that the ering on the side of caution r is better then and potential cancer being left to its own devices which is why i went today.