An 'Ambiguity of Evidence'.

So says Dr. Edward Stefanek with regards to Cancer Screening in an article in Medscape Today. He cites the 'summoning' of women for mammography, contrasting with the 'informed choice' paradigm that exists for men with possible prostrate cancer. He suggests too that this is paternalistic, I would say more likely misogynistic as well, because men are viewed as being participants in some sort of  'club' by simple virtue of their sex, when it comes to honesty in health care. In fact the first rule of misogyny (just like 'fight club') is that we don't talk about misogyny.

Well, I for one don't want to belong to any such club, fraternity or organisation. I do not want to labelled as a feminist either, because I do not wish to 'steal' the term from women. I want to be known as an equal, and one who is just as vulnerable, fallible and more importantly human as is any woman. I am not strident (except in this view) aggressive or demanding of any submission (from women) and feel some men are 'spoiling' it for the rest of us, and the greatest of these are the those who lurk in Medicine, and within that cohort those who continually ram home the message that 'screening saves lives'. Well, patently it does not. It may facilitate an intervention that may do so, but screening per se cannot save any life.

Screening for all cancers is constantly on the rise, despite the fact of the paucity of evidence that exists to support it's continued promotion by the NHS. Medscape also featured Carole Schroeder  who has an interesting blog that provides good information for men about prostrate cancer, but the main thread is that for far too long, women in general (and occasionally men) have been subjected to a constant tirade that they are taking "unacceptable" risks with their health unless they submit to screening. Mammography leads the way despite the fact that recent studies have clearly shown that it is not effective for most and can be catastrophic for some as I detailed in a previous post. There is now a groundswell of opinion rising to ensure that all those who participate are fully informed of the risks, benefits and harms of the process, instead of the current paradigm of inflating the the risks of breast cancer and concealing the harms of mammography. The the BMJ highlighted this last July and I wrote about the innate misogyny displayed in many of the testing regimes, aimed at women, only recently.

A recent development however, is the call for younger women to be 'screened' for cervical cancer, which to be frank is bordering on the dangerous, but when a young Nottingham woman was diagnosed with cervical cancer the pressure was applied both at local and National level for this cohort to be screened. This is despite the fact that only ten deaths from this form of cancer in 20-24 year olds was recorded in the whole of England and Wales in 1988-1989 and it has subsequently 'fallen of a cliff in mortality terms down to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 by the turn of the century (overall mortality). So despite the fact that Natalie Carney did actually have cancer, which is appalling, should we then create a whole new subset of tested women because of one isolated case? Women in this age group often have abnormal cells but it is well known that virtually all of these regress spontaneously without intervention, which is largely why young women are not screened. In fact most screened abnormalities are either benign or regress generally but 'over-diagnosis', just as in mammography, dominates cervical screening. But there is a bigger issue, as always and that is Coercion.

Persuasive tactics predominate all cancer screening testing. The NHS and it's GP's in particular values it out of any proportion to the benefits, but it is a political imperative, maybe to show that they care (sic). 'List and chase' was the tactic employed in the 90's along with 'hit that target', all to encourage GP's to recruit women to the Cytology Screening Programme so they could get their target payments. Yes, they get paid substantial sums for achieving an 80% uptake of testing in the 25 to 64 yr old practise cohort. In fact until payments were commenced uptake was quite low, but once the money was there that all changed. One GP is alleged to have said, "We are afraid of missing our targets, not missing a cancer" (Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:151-157). I think that sums up the position quite nicely.

There is little in the way of information provided to women targeted, just exhortations that 'you put your life at risk, by not complying', or ' REMEMBER - regular smears saves lives' and other such coercive statements that are simply not borne out by the evidence. A balanced view is never given and feminine autonomy is usurped by this type of inflammatory rubbish because experts cannot predict the incidence of abnormal smears nor those that will definitely progress to invasive cancers. Quite large numbers of those tested are then subjected interminable waits to find out if there cancer is real and many go on to be treated with surgery or radiation for no useful purpose other than 'being sure'. Those who try to shun the tests are often singled out for bombardment with 'phone calls, text messages and mail shots that are akin to blackmail, foretelling all sorts of dire consequences if they continue to abdicate their responsibility to their partners and families.

Current leaflets explaining the test and likelihood of cervical cancer outrageously inflate the benefits saying that screening is responsible for the drop in the rate of mortality, when it was falling before the testing system got underway and there is no evidence whatsoever that the fall in incidence or mortality was due to screening. Almost 30% of actual cancers occurred in women who had adhered totally to screening guidelines. There were 6231 women diagnosed with cervical cancer between 2007 and 2010, in a population in England of 14.6 million. 44% of those cancers were classed as 'micro-invasive' and were conservatively treated by cone biopsy or loop excision (and of course may not have been true cancers). So that is approximately an incidence of 14.4 per 100,000. Or approximately 8 per 100,000 for those with Stage 1B+ Cancer or worst. At 1 in 3000, you are considerably more likely to to be hit by a meteorite ( I know I didn't believe it, but I did check) so let's get this into some sort of perspective. Of course as you get older the incidence and mortality increases, as will be seen from the graph. That of course is in accord with the aetiology of this cancer which can take many long years to develop. But it still remains quite rare. So does it warrant all the attention, cost and stress to women?

More important however, is the treatment of women as a whole as incapable of making an informed decision about their lives and the ethically unacceptable tactics employed to persuade them to bow to the dubious manipulation of the State. We all are (or should be) autonomous adults and it's completely unethical to attempt to infiltrate any of us with dubious medical opinions, statistics or advice instead of treating us a agents of our own destiny. It is generally women rather than men that are treated in this way and it is generally men who do it. I am ashamed of my gender, especially those called 'Doctor'.

Perhaps the words of Professor Michael Baum, one of my medical hero's may be the best ones to end with. They are here.

Health Misogyny

Health care in general and the NHS in particular, places far too much reliance upon the notion of prevention and 'early' detection of disease, or rather the 'markers' of what is assumed to be a possible or maybe disease, or condition. This particular trait, and it is redolent of all health care models throughout civilisation, is directed more at women than men.

Perhaps the concept of women being fragile, vulnerable to all sorts of ailments diseases and conditions, that are either particular to, or more predominant in their sex than males, is where this founded. And, of course when this process of labelling all women as potential harbingers of their own doom came to pass, it was men who set about building the edifice of treatments, allocated specifically to the 'fairer' sex, to save them from their 'treacherous' hormone ravaged bodies. And what a crock of s**t, it has all turned out to be.

Mammograms, Cervical Smear Tests, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Vaccines targeted for Cervical Cancer, 'Medicalisation' of Pregnancy, Osteoporosis treatments (mainly for women) and the general consensus that women need 'protecting' from the ravages of their own predisposition to ailments arising from their femininity. Men and some women, are unable to resist the urge to prod, poke and peer into the extremities of women simply to reassure themselves, and vulnerable women, that all is as it 'should be'. A whole industry in Medicine and Health care has sprung from this, including the desire of men, often imposed upon women, to aspire to a stereotype image of the size 10 with big breasts and shapely bottoms. Culminating of course in the Breast Augmentation, Reduction and Botox protocols that has spectacularly 'gone wrong' in the case of the PIP debacle.

I have written at length about Screening for Breast Cancer in the past and  more evidence has comes to light about it's futility for most, and the lie perpetrated that many are 'saved', when in fact the so called cancer found, is not really 'cancer' at all. And it would have likely responded to 'watch and wait protocols' rather than going in with the knife, radiation and chemotherapy. The 'treatment' of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) is redolent of this mindset. Studies conducted also continue to find that mammography seems to increase the incidence of breast cancer than reducing it. The main problem is however that women are treated as pawns, and deprived of the information needed to make an informed decision about whether or not, to submit to this 'testing' (sic) protocol.

Cervical Smear Tests are also 'sold' to women as essential to health and whilst there is little harm invoked by them, when an abnormality is detected the 'system' once more tends to 'overtreat' and frighten women into interventions that can be counter productive. Firstly the incidence of cervical cancers is quite low at 2.4 per 100,000 (European age standardised mortality)  and certainly screening young women (up to 30 years) has been shown to be of little worth. The trend also has been been downwards for the past thirty years (from 7.1). As the mortality rate for Prostrate Cancer is rising and  close to 10x  higher at 23.9 per 100,000 it seems strange that this is not targeted, when Cervical Cancer is. But of course 'overdiagnosis' is really the problem in oncology, especially for treatment protocols directed at women and it continues, without abatement.

We now have the HPV vaccine, targeted (again) at young women to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts yet the vaccine (Gardasil/Cervarix) is only admitted as being effective against two strains of the Virus (types 16 and 18) and there are allegedly thirty strains that are cancer promoting. As the target cohort is 11 to 13 years old females (although now men are now being targeted too!) prior to likely sexual activity and protection is only afforded for ten years at most, it seems perverse to leave them without protection in the years when activity is likely to be elevated, so is it worth it? Even of course if you even think that the vaccine is any good in the first place, which viewing the evidence it seems not, to me. I personally feel that the whole concept of an 'epidemic' of HPV infections is pure hype to sell an unproven vaccine, mainly to women, for their daughters, to swell the coffers of  'Pharma' at a time when the 'blockbuster' drugs are coming off patent. Do young girls need a pretty useless vaccine for a relatively easily treated disease of very low incidence? Make up your own mind, your informed mind. This JAMA editorial may help.

And what of HRT? It was proffered as the panacea for menopausal symptoms and the retention of 'youthful vigour' in women of a certain age and although for many it did precisely that, it exacted a price; breast cancer. Even with short term use, risks of both cardiovascular disease and thromboembolism were also increased tremendously and the ovarian cancer risk increased in the oestrogen only cohorts by some 60% (relative risk). Except for extreme cases, it is used rarely for menopausal symptoms today, but that did not stop 'Pharma' from reaping tremendous profits, from an ill conceived and dangerous drug that is now seen as being counterproductive despite its benefit for the prevention of osteoporosis (but not treatment).

Way back in history we had thalidomide, that was targeted at women to eliminate or ameliorate the problems of 'morning sickness' in pregnancy. As most will know, it wreaked terrible havoc with lasting and appalling effects, but now new information is coming to light about a virtually forgotten drug called Diethylstilboestrol (DES) which seems to cause a rare form of cancer of the vagina and cervix called 'clear cell adenocarcinoma' or CCAC, in the second generation .The Independent on Sunday of today, has highlighted this, but the story has been around for some time with $1.5bn paid out already to victims. Surprisingly, this drug is still used in the UK (but rarely) under the 'Apstil' brand for prostrate cancer and advanced breast cancer in post-menopausal women. (Another crock of s**t?). It was another drug invented for the 'medicalisation' of pregnancy.

It is quite rare in fact for any women to have a home birth. They are taught to fear this in case of complications and the need to ensure their offspring are 'safe'. The truth is in fact that home is a much safer place than hospital, as many of us will know, when we went to hospital for one problem and ended up with many more. The following are some interesting statistics.

	Births (  percent of total )		Perinatal Mortality ( per 1000 births )
	1958	1970	1958	1970
Hospital	49	66	50.1	27.8
GP Unit	12	19	20.3	6.1
Home	36	12	19.8	4.3

 ( Statistics resulting from 1958 and 1970 perinatal surveys in Britain. Sources: Sheila Kitzinger, Homebirth and Other Alternatives to Hospital, and Marjorie Tew, Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, August 1985.)

Prospective mothers will be told that they are putting their baby 'at risk' if they stay at home for their birth, and I would be the first to advocate that any at risk should be hospitalised, but for healthy women, especially in their second pregnancy, with no known risks, it is cheaper, safer and less traumatic for mother and baby. Yet a whole industry has grown up in the NHS to foster the idea that no other protocol should be countenanced.

Women are continually treated as if to be female is an illness in itself and that your whole life has to be conducted under the microscope of the Health care Profession. Many of the ailments that women are heir to have their risk inflated out of all proportion to reality. many, as I have pointed out are very low; much lower than many that are completely ignored by medicine. We continue along the road of epidemiology and genetics as twin pillars of research but it is a blind alley, especially for women, who have suffered more than men in this construct of blaming their ills upon hedonistic lifestyles, stupidity, and poverty. Most if not all of the breakthroughs in medicine have been due to luck more than insight. Failed aspirations are in fact the predominant factor in Health care, and the 'expert committee' the death knell of common sense.

To treat women as the 'milch cow' of medicine is patronising, condescending and it is without doubt misogyny. Doctors and Clinicians should cease this continual search for things they can 'invent' to fill in their time before their wealth laden retirement. Perhaps they have; children. But that must wait for another day.

By writing this post I could perhaps be accused of the sin I am trying the exemplify. I really hope not.

Screening for Cancer Fails to Prove its Worth.

I have talked at some length about Breast Cancer Screening  before, and accused those involved to be more interested in perpetuating the myth that 'screening saves lives' than in providing facts for women to make an informed decision. Well, the clamour is getting louder for 'real information' to be available for this and other screening protocols and what are the advocates doing to quell the disquiet? Closing their eyes, ears and more importantly their mouths.

The recent study in the BMJ showed clearly that screening (mammography) is not responsible for the reduction in Breast Cancer mortality seen in six Eurpoean populations. In fact, in a few of these countries, mortality was reducing prior to any screening protocols being in place. The response of the screening lobby   ( a powerful vested interest), has been resounding silence, to these obvious negative inputs to the argument. Displaying the trait it seems of the 'three wise monkeys', as Richard Smith  explained on his BMJ blog.

Screening for Bowel Cancer too has been having some bad press as the relative risks are presented as absolute in the leaflet provided to the prospective cohort (including me). In truth the risks are quite small and the relatively 'crude' methods involved in screening lead to many false positives, waits for confirmation, and much unneccessary treatments, investigations and, the attached risks of harm involved in colonoscopy are actually higher than the likelihood of Colerectal Cancer (much higher at 1 in 150) and the risks of  procedure causing perforation and the consequent risk of pertonitis is 1 in 1500. Risk of death is pretty low at 1 in 10,000, but that is close to the absolute risk anyway, which is less than 1 per 1000 in ten years of screening.

Mitzi Blennerhassett, wrote in Macmillan blogs about the dearth of information, and indeed the bias of that available and she is (thus far) a survivor of colerectal and breast cancer, so she talks from the frontline. The replies to the BMJ about the study also make fascinating reading, with much criticism of the lack of evidence and indeed the arrogance portrayed by most in the 'business' (for that is what is) when questioned as to the efficacy of mammography or indeed most forms of cancer screening.

The NHS spends vast amounts on these protocols, allegedly to save us from 'harm' and an untimely end, but fails consumately in simple areas of diagnosis of illness in so many patients, treats the elderly with appalling disdain, even cruelty. Is lacking in 'adequate out of hours' trauma provision. Trains Doctors to be patently less good at the job than in the past, then 'throws' them into the maelstrom of A&E with little or no mentoring or backup. When scientific evidence is presented that indicates that a drug or procedure is harmful, especially Primary interventions for prevention using 'surrogate markers' or end points, rather than a patient actually being ill, they ignore it!

Prof. Michael Baum with others, ( 3 pages of them) wrote to the Sunday Times about this lack of information and the virtual conspiracy of silence that exists around the harms, way back in 2009. He was ignored. He wrote again recently but that's behind a paywall now so I can't post that link. The signatories are seeking  a judicial review of the screening programme because they are so incensed by the lack of information and potential harms it causes. The conspiracy of silence continues with evidence stacking up in the aisles that we do little to end the tyranny of Cancer but much to find it, where it doesn't exist and even more to treat it with questionable drugs and procedures that may in fact add to it's virulence. A scientifically informed choice is what is needed and an NHS dedicated to curing the sick and the lame, and giving comfort to the dying, not that which we have now.

Counting the Harms (and the cost),

I hold the view that the NHS is responsible for considerable harms. The cost of those harms, both financial and in lives, are often overlooked by the populace, because they hold to their bosom's a number of myths about disease, and how it can be avoided by 'screening'. That protocol is more of a political imperative than one borne out by the science. Cancer is one of these. We all want to believe that the NHS can save us from a terrible termination of our lives by 'catching' this scourge of contempory existence, in it's early stages and thus saving, or at least prolonging our lives. We are deluded. And it is 'bosoms', probably most of all, where screening concentrates it's efforts.

Breasts, define the difference between the sexes, perhaps more than any other element of  appearance and they are an emotive indicator of feminism, much admired by men and cherished by women, whose fear of breast cancer and the loss of that essential feminism, seems to be a real and present danger. But, that is largely a myth. Incidence is in fact between 1 and 2 per 1000 per year, dependent upon whether you are pre, or post menopausal. In fact 80% of detected breast cancer occurs in women over the age of 50, so this cohort is the most at risk. However, if we compute that into a ten year risk analysis, then 994 women out of 1000 will not get breast cancer.

Fiona Godlee in the BMJ of March 2006 questioned the ethics of screening and came to the conclusion that it was overstated for efficacy and 'over diagnosis' was a considerable failing of the system. This is reflected in the views of Professor Michael Baum in this critique he wrote in 2008, shortly after he resigned from the programme which he had helped to set up. Principal amongst his thoughts, are that screening does not cure anything it just detects asymptomatic disease; breast cancer, well maybe. But 'catching it early' does not devolve any cure, merely a postponement of the inevitable fate of us all, for a somewhat flawed paradigm of periodic testing, that in itself has unpleasant and somewhat dangerous implications for the recipient, with no gaurantee of longer or better life than would have been the case without it.

Mammography is the current test protocol for the early detection of abnormalities, which involves quite high levels of ionising radation, being delivered in several doses, to ensure an 'allegedly' complete picture of the breast. In fact the dose is equal to 1000x that from a standard chest X-ray, so there is some considerable dangers attached to screening in this manner. This holds true when pre-menopausal women are screened, as is the current plan (coming soon to screening centre near you), because the cumulative dose will increase significantly due to the longer screening periods. A dose level of 1 rad in total is often the case, so over time this can add up to a significant risk for cancer in it's own right. In fact the estimated risk of cancer from mammography was calculated, based upon a life total of 24 screenings, of the digital type (which uses a much lower dose than film screening, usually employed in the UK) that 8.6 women per 10,000 would develope cancer as a result of screening, in itself. That, I would add is not far short of the overall risk of 1/1000 of getting cancer anyway.

The Nordic Cochrane Centre has conducted extensive research on the subject and came to the following conclusions;-

 Absolute risk reduction for screening is 0.05%
.
Screening led to an absolute risk increase of 0.05% due to a 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment.


So, for 2000 women screened for 10 years, 1 (that's one) will have her life prolonged and 10 (that's ten) healthy women, will undergo unnecessary treatment including breast removal, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, for no useful purpose. The Centre has produced a leaflet which gives an unbiased and scientific evaluation of screening to enable women to make an informed choice, as opposed to the over emotional and biased view portrayed by the NHS and indeed most Physicians.

There have been many studies undertaken to prove or disprove the efficacy of mammography, and the results have been ambiguous a lot of the time, but the the Canadian Trials are viewed as being amongst the best and it is clearly stated that screening had no impact on mortality (post menopausal women 50-59). Here is the view from the Cancer Prevention Coalition in the US who have considerable reservations about it's outcomes and the forces at work that advocate it's use. And this riposte published in the The Lancet from February of 2002 looked at the attempts to 'rubbish' the Canadian and Malmo trials which, when evaluated showed no difference in mortality between screened and unscreened women (see here for more comment). Even the quite militant screening advocates, the US National Breast Cancer Coalition, indicate that screening only reduces the absolute risk by 0.07% ( in women between 50 and 65).


So at best we can hope for a very small, numerically insignificant reduction or no reduction, in breast cancer in post menopausal women, by mammography screening, for some extremely unpleasant side effects and a 10x higher risk of over diagnosis and treatment. Many cancers detected are in fact benign or self limiting and will regress if left or simply stay the same. We do much harm and very little good by screening and for women with breast cancer, a majority will have found it themselves and screening will have played no part, or worst the lump will have appeared between screenings. In other words screening finds very little vigorous tumours but is good at finding and treating cancers that are not usually life threatening. This skews the picture even more.

And what of cost to the NHS? Well around 2 million tests are undertaken each year and rising. The cost of the tests was £166 million (in 2008) but obviously more now. If we add in the re-tests, biopsy and operation and therapy costs so that we save one women in 2000 (in 10 years) but at the same time treat 10x that number who do not even have cancer, we are talking about £500 million or more. How can the NHS justify this enormous cost without having better outcomes? And why do women tolerate this appalling invasion of their bodies with all the attendant risks, amongst which is the fact that if they have already got cancer at testing, the 'squeezing' effect of the plates is likely to cause it spread much more quickly because of the force employed which is about 200 newtons (45 lbs).

Screening is not prevention, merely the detection of a marker for a given disease, or an actual tumour in the case of cancer. We 'sell' to women the view that we are preventing their untimely demise from cancer by screening, which is of course a complete lie.  It is in the interests of all involved in this 'industry' of testing that it continues and proliferates as it has done since 2008, when the 'saintly' Gordon (Brown) decided, without any scientific input, that he would fund a whole new paradigm of test protocols to enable the 'plebs' extend their life spans. As is usual Physicians and the NHS leapt at this opportunity for even more incentive payments to increase their wealth (and power).It reinforced the  utilitarian principles that have driven the Neo-Liberal doctrine since Tony Blair's ascendency and for all his heirs and sucessors including the tossers 'toff's' who now rule.

There are other alternatives for those who are particularly 'at risk' like the genetically disposed cohort, such as MRI and/or thermographic imaging, both of which are significantly more benign, or even entirely so. There is also considerable hope for a simple saliva test that will provide a non invasive test. There is also considerable evidence that maintaining sufficient levels of Vitamin D3 by exposure to sunlight (without sunscreen) can confer protection against breast cancer.

Well ladies, I have strayed into territory that many men would fear to tread, but I feel that you are all being manipulated by the emotional baggage surrounding this issue. Mammography is oversold and is wanting of evidence to justify both it's expense and it's outcomes. It appeals to the emotional attachment you have to a part of your body that feeds your offsprings, tantalises and fascinates most of mankind, and in many ways defines your femininity. It plays to the fears we all have of the 'big C' as John Wayne called it, and gives false hope for a dubious protocol that feeds an industry without morals, and an NHS that kills 25,000 people a year due to preventable adverse events ( Ian Kennedy's report of the  Bristol Heart Inquiry). Let us 'clean the stables'of that mess instead of  venturing into prevention strategies of little worth.






.