Mammography or Primary Prevention...

[Celebration]

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/press

(sent to the NY Times, not published that I know of)

An Open Letter to the New York Times

by Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr. P.H.
12/7/09

Editor, New York Times:

We have closely followed the stories in the Times about the mammography controversy. The coverage has been thorough and superb.

The controversy is about a procedure that, at best, reduces mortality by 15% and does nothing toward primary prevention.

It is not widely realized that most breast cancer is preventable. While the scientific literature reveals many strategies for prevention of breast cancer, the simplest is elimination of the vitamin D deficiency. This is the main known cause of breast cancer. Raising the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level to 40-60 ng/ml could prevent 75-80% of breast cancer incidence (and deaths, of course).

While deciding on the issue of mammography, action can be taken today to raise the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D to appropriate levels.

Sincerely yours,
Cedric F. Garland, Dr. P.H., F.A.C.E.
Professor
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
University of California San Diego
Participating Member
Moores UCSD Cancer Center
La Jolla, California

[truedelphi]

1. Thank you for posting.

Good point and one that the cancer industry doesn't care to have wide spread -

It is not widely realized that most breast cancer is preventable. While the scientific literature reveals many strategies for prevention of breast cancer, the simplest is elimination of the vitamin D deficiency. This is the main known cause of breast cancer. Raising the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level to 40-60 ng/ml could prevent 75-80% of breast cancer incidence (and deaths, of course).

[SPedigrees]

2. Makes me glad we started taking vitamin D3 a yr ago.

Esp since we don't spend the hours outdoors in the sun that we used to.

If I am unlucky enough to ever get cancer I won't be destroying my immune system w/ chemo or radiation either.

I won't say K & R since threads on this forum don't "kick" but I gave this a recommend.

[Zoeisright]

3. Chemo and radiation work.

Don't dismiss them out of hand. My husband had cancer 25 years ago, had chemo and radiation and is alive and healthy today.

[Karia]

5. I'm alive and well because of chemo

15 years later! I was on chemo for 6 months. During that time, I missed about a week of work altogether from feeling too sick. Most of the time I was tired, but not actually feeling sick. Moreover, chemo is much improved since I had it.
Even if I'd been sick for all 6 months straight, these last 15 years and the many more I plan to live have been worth it.

[Berry Cool]

4. I think the jury is still out on whether this works

but one thing is for sure: Mammography cannot and never could prevent breast cancer. All it can do is detect what is already there. And whether or not finding it early is good news, or news that ends up mattering at all, is a matter of the pathology of what is there. If what is there is kind of lazy and slow-growing, you might be able to leave it there with no harm done ever. If what is there is nasty and aggressive, it may not matter how early you find it or how small it is when you find it--it may kill anyway. The sad, sad truth.

[Celebration]

6. you sum it up nicely

There is a whole industry that has formed around early detection. One has to keep that in mind when evaluating all this.

The benefits and risks of mammography is a great big balancing act.

There's little risk in getting Vitamin D levels checked, getting sunshine without burning, setting goals for the highest levels of normal, etc. These researchers, particularly the San Diego crew, are relentless. I admire that. They probably have their reasons.