Mammograms Over Diagnose Cancer by 15-25%

by | Apr 11, 2012


Mammography might not be appropriate for use in breast cancer screening because it cannot distinguish between progressive and nonprogressive cancer,” said Mette Kalager, M.D., lead author of new research linking mammograms to significant overdiagnosis of breast cancer.
The new research conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) suggests that routine mammography screening — long viewed as an essential tool in detecting early breast cancers — may in fact lead to a significant amount of overdiagnosis of disease that would have proved harmless. Based on a study of 39,888 women in Norway, the researchers estimate that between 15 percent and 25 percent of breast cancer cases are overdiagnosed and cause women to undergo surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation needlessly. 
By Karen Feldscher
April 2, 2012  /  Harvard School of Public Health Communications
“Mammography might not be appropriate for use in breast cancer screening because it cannot distinguish between progressive and nonprogressive cancer,” said lead author Mette Kalager, a visiting scientist at HSPH and a researcher at the Telemark Hospital in Norway. “Radiologists have been trained to find even the smallest of tumors in a bid to detect as many cancers as possible to be able to cure breast cancer. However, the present study adds to the increasing body of evidence that this practice has caused a problem for women — diagnosis of breast cancer that wouldn’t cause symptoms or death.”
Most women in the U.S. begin having annual mammograms in their 40s or 50s. But recent research suggesting evidence of overdiagnosis has increased debate about the benefits of screening. A number of experts have speculated that new treatments for breast cancer play a larger role in saving women’s lives than screening does — and have noted that overdiagnosis can cause unnecessary stress and unnecessary medical treatment.
Kalager says the new findings suggest that women should be well-informed not only about the potential benefits from mammography, but also about its possible harms — including mental distress, biopsies, surgeries, or chemotherapy and hormone treatments for disease that would never have caused symptoms.
The researchers analyzed data from 39,888 women with invasive breast cancer in Norway, 7,793 of whom were diagnosed during the 10-year rollout of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program, which began in 1996, for women ages 50 through 69. Because the screening program was phased in over time, the researchers were able to compare the number of breast cancer cases in women who had been offered screening with those not offered screening. The remaining study population consisted of two historical-comparison groups — mirroring the current groups — of women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1986 through 1995, before the nationwide program began.
The researchers theorized that if mammography is beneficial, it would lead to a decrease in late-stage breast cancer cases — the theory being that early detection prevents late-stage disease.
But the researchers did not find a reduction in late-stage disease in women who’d been offered screening. They did find, though, a substantial amount of overdiagnosis: Among the 7,793 women diagnosed with breast cancer through participation in the screening program, 15 percent to 25 percent were overdiagnosed — between 1,169 and 1,948 women.
Based on those numbers, the researchers further estimated that, for every 2,500 women invited to screening, 2,470 to 2,474 will never be diagnosed with breast cancer and 2,499 will never die from breast cancer. Only one death from breast cancer will be prevented. But six to 10 women will be overdiagnosed, and treated with surgery, radiation therapy, and possibly chemotherapy without any benefit.
Other HSPH authors included senior author Rulla Tamimi, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology, and Hans-Olov Adami, professor of epidemiology.
Support for the study was provided by the Norwegian Research Council and Frontier Science.
Source: Harvard School of Public Health CommunicationsAnnals of Internal Medicine, April 3, 2012.

Ivermectin + Mebendazole taken together produce remarkably Positive Clinical Cancer Benefits in 84.4% of Patients.

The largest real-world human analysis to date evaluating ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients has just been published—and the results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.

This groundbreaking analysis was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel (Dr. Harvey Risch)—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and high-level epidemiologic expertise to deliver urgently needed insights in oncology.

This was a real-world prospective clinical program evaluation of 197 cancer patients, with 122 completing a follow-up survey at about six months (61.9% response rate).

Cancer patients were prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole—most commonly taken at 1–2 capsules per day.

The cohort represented a clinically relevant population, including a wide variety cancer types, with 37.1% of patients reporting actively progressing disease at baseline and many having already undergone chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

At six months, 84.4% of cancer patients reported clinical benefit (Clinical Benefit Ratio: 84.4% [95% CI: 77.0–89.8%]):

✅ 32.8% reported NO evidence of cancer (95% CI: 25.1–41.5%)
✅ 15.6% reported tumor regression (95% CI: 10.2–23.0%)
✅ 36.1% reported stable disease (95% CI: 28.1–44.9%)

Treatment adherence was high, with 86.9% completing the full protocol and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.

The regimen was well tolerated, with 25.4% reporting side effects, primarily mild and gastrointestinal, and over 93% continuing treatment despite these events.

Patients were treated in real-world conditions alongside concurrent therapies, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation (21.3%), surgery (19.7%), supplements (49.2%), and dietary modification (37.7%), supporting use as an adjunctive approach.

Together, these findings represent a large, internally consistent real-world clinical signal that supports URGENT further investigation of ivermectin and mebendazole as low-toxicity, adjunctive cancer therapies.

Given the strength of the signal observed here, advancing this line of investigation is no longer optional—it is necessary.

This is NOT the end. We will continue advancing this work with larger datasets to further define and validate the role of anti-parasitics in cancer outcomes.

The manuscript is now available as a preprint on the Zenodo research repository, operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, while undergoing peer review at leading oncology journals: “Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort.”

Bar chart showing distribution of common cancer types with breast cancer most prevalent.
Infographic on disease status and median duration since diagnosis.

Receive Our Newsletter

8 + 11 =

jQuery( document ).ready(function( $ ) { // $( "div" ).hide(); });