The chance that a woman will die from breast cancer in developed countries is 1 in 40 (remember that 1 out of 8 women will have breast cancer). Therefore, in a theater of one thousand women, 25 will die from breast cancer.
2/
This means that if regular mammography screening was really reducing breast cancer death by 20%, more than 5 women out of 1000 have been saved by regular mammography screening (since the above numbers are in countries with national screening).
3/
5 women out of 1000 saved from breast cancer death is not that bad. But this does not occur.
4/
3) We don’t see any reduction in breast cancer mortality after mammography screening because, although mammography leads to early detection and treatment, it causes radiation-induced cancer:


5/5

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daniel Corcos

Daniel Corcos Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @daniel_corcos

19 Oct
The origin of Covid-19 is no longer a scientific question: it is a major question on the functioning of scientific institutions.
@BillyBostickson @TheSeeker268
THREAD
1/n
The Covid-19 epidemic that has claimed millions of lives began in the city of Wuhan, a modern city in China with an institute (the WIV) where bat coronaviruses were studied and housed.
2/n
The most basic way to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 that claimed so many victims came from the WIV would have been to find out what work was being done in this institute by obtaining funding requests and lab notebooks.

3/n
Read 22 tweets
18 Jun
In 2016 I've discovered while working at the @Inserm (the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research) that mammography screening is a major cause of breast cancer, due to X-ray induced-radiation. I was harassed by the INSERM and lost my permanent position in 2018
2/
I received support from Archie Bleyer, Professor Emeritus at OHSU, and we could publish in the New England of Medicine some data on the consequences of nationwide mammography screening in France and in the USA (Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020).
3/
Read 11 tweets
13 Jun
#Wuhan #lableak
Le complotisme, c'est d'imaginer que tout relève d'un projet élaboré. Mais généralement, la réalité est encore plus tragique : c'est la stupidité au pouvoir et la crédulité face aux manoeuvres grossières pour couvrir les erreurs et l'incompétence. 1/n
Il fallait être stupide pour croire que des expériences en laboratoire visant à "améliorer" un virus avaient plus d'intérêt que de risques. Il fallait vraiment ignorer que les fuites de laboratoire était des évènements fréquents. Pourtant, les Chinois n'était pas les seuls.. 2/n
dans cette entreprise. Quand la théorie du "wet market" est arrivée, il fallait être extrêmement crédule pour continuer à la prendre au sérieux quand on a appris qu'aucune chauve-souris n'y étaient vendue. Si l'étude de l'origine la plus plausible, la fuite de laboratoire .. 3/n
Read 13 tweets
1 Jun
Chronologie de l’affaire des cancers du dépistage mammographique.
@RecheckHealth @HealthWatchUK @Lanceursalertes @JouanAnne1 @gijnFr @TranspariMED @stephanehorel

1/
L’affaire des cancers du dépistage mammographique cache en fait un scandale sanitaire encore plus grand, celui des risques des examens radiologiques, qui pourrait bien être une cause majeure de cancers dans les pays développés.
2/
Le risque de K lié aux examens radiologiques a été systématiquement occulté par le monde médical et industriel pour des raisons d’habitude, de dogme, et de COI. Le "consensus" est qu'il y a un risque mais qu’il est négligeable. Les opposants au consensus sont en fait éliminés
3/
Read 47 tweets
2 Apr
@JouanAnne1 @pascale_santi @sandrine_cabut @fabricearfi @EliseLucet @SCoignard @vincentglad @hervenirom
Ce fil est pour @DgCostagliola. Pas de chance pour elle, c’est l’#épidémiologiste de l’@Inserm la plus visible sur Twitter. Je lui demande de réagir à mes affirmations. 1/10
2/10
Il existe une correlation parfaite, temporelle et géographique, entre dépistage mammographique et incidence du cancer du sein. La corrélation temporelle est observable partout, j’y reviendrai plus loin.
3/10 Pour la corrélation géographique, on la voit également partout. Ici par exemple, l’incidence du cancer du sein relative à la pratique du dépistage mammographique par département aux USA.

Harding et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Image
Read 11 tweets
24 Sep 20
October test (thread) @VPrasadMDMPH @adamcifu @EricTopol @HealthWatchUK
1) Let’s suppose that you screen for cancer people aged 50 to 75 years every 2 years and remove all the cancers you detect for 25 years.
After 25 years of this, in people over 75 years, will you find:
2) Answer: fewer prostate cancers; but more breast cancers.
In 75+ year olds: Corcos & Bleyer, NEJM, 2020
3) Why are there more cancers in old women after mammography screening?
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(