McDougall on Mammography

I certainly don't agree with John McDougall's dietary philosophy, but I do agree with his recent article on Huffington Post "ACS Chief Sends Mixed Messages On Mammography."

A choice observation he makes:

"The burden of proof of 'the benefits outweighing the harms' rests with those making the recommendations--the American Cancer Society and its Chief Medical Officer in this case. Dr. Brawley has voiced doubt about the benefits of mammography, and now appears conflicted by communicating two opposing stands in less than a month. The American Cancer Society, on the other hand, has remained steadfast in a position that enhances the profits of breast cancer-related businesses, regardless of the effects on women."

As he points out, a typical breast tumor has been growing for ten years (going from one cell to 1 cm in diameter) before a mammogram can detect it:

"Adequate scientific evidence to stop mass screening programs, such as mammography, has been readily available for more than three decades. In 1976 Pietro M. Gullino presented his findings on the natural history of cancer, showing 'early detection' is really 'late detection,' at the Conference on Breast Cancer: A Report to the Profession, sponsored by the White House, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. He explained: 'If the time required for a tumor to double its diameter during a known period of time is taken as a measure of growth rate, one can calculate by extrapolation that two-thirds of the duration of a breast cancer remains undetectable by the patient or physician. Long before a breast carcinoma can be detected by present technology, metastatic spread may occur and does in most cases.' This report was subsequently published in the journal representing the American Cancer Society (Cancer 1977 Jun;39(6 Suppl):2697-703)."

The drive for so-called "early" detection does serve people who have invested in expensive radiologic equipment. If your physician recommends early mammograms, you might want to find out if s/he has investments in or business ties with radiology centers.

It also leads to a lot of unnecessary medical intervention:

"Just as tragic is the devastation to the lives of millions of women with indolent cancers (the latent forms) that would have never appeared in their lifetime if no one had been busy looking for them with screening programs. Once found, these nonthreatening lesions are aggressively treated with life-changing surgeries, radiation treatments, and/or chemotherapies."

Having studied it for about 20 years now, the "science" of cancer treatment in the U.S. has about as much "science" to it as the lipid hypothesis. I can only conclude that it has more commercial than scientific basis. And all dissenters, such as Max Gerson, who produced evidence of cancer reversal with dietary intervention, are labeled nutcases, etc.

Imagine if it became commonly known that cancer can be cured by dietary interventions. What would happen to all those cushy jobs for those searching for cures? The ACS etc. have perverse incentive. So long as the cure is elusive, they continue to have cushy jobs and lots of donations.

Why is this relevant on a paleo blog? Because cancer is a disease of civilization, largely caused by neolithic foods and insulin levels, and we have evidence that paleo diets can prevent and probably reverse some if not all cancers.