ROI-Breast Through Thermal
Imaging: all scans are read by an m.d
and you get a copy of the results that
you may take to a specialist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Infrared Thermal Imaging is the screening women have
been waiting for. FDA approved, the test can detect Breast changes Seven
times earlier then a standard Mammogram.
This method offers the unique insight of a “first glance” at developing
conditions long before the much later stage detection of conventional
imaging or Breast self-examination.
It also offers the benefit of pure & safe imaging. There is no risk of
damage to the fragile cellular DNA or to delicate breast implants.
This test is a great tool for women with Breast Implants of all kinds as it
does not use any compression and it's interpretation not obstructed by the
implants themselves.
There are special protocols for treatment of all early stage conditions
to give a woman the added benefit of prevention to avoid
development of unwanted disease. This can save her the heartache
of treatment and undesirable risk associated with later stage detection.
Don’t Break the Chain
Ionizing radiation causes double and multiple strand breaks in DNA and is accepted as a primary cause
of cancer. Since the 1970s, the gold standard for breast cancer detection, in the Western world, has
been screening mammography which uses radiation.
Since 1970, the percentage of women with breast cancer has tripled. Cancer can be caused by a number
of factors. Excess estrogen, carcinogens from chemicals and other factors contribute to allowing cancer to
grow. Family history and genetics are rarely a factor. That means we are unknowingly doing it to ourselves.
A Brief History
The scientific community has long been suspicious of the risks posed by the ionizing radiation of the
mammogram—and for
good reason. In 1904, soon after Thomas Edison made the first X-ray machine, his assistant, Clarence
Dally, died from radiation induced cancer. He has been referred to as a “martyr for science.” Radiation
became the longest standing and most documented cause of cancer. Even Thomas Edison refused ever
to have an X-Ray. Viewing inside the human body, however, was so compelling that the risks have been
virtually ignored, down-played, and thought of as “worth the benefit.” You might ask, “To whom is this
worth the risks?” Although mammography was quickly accepted in the 1970s as the answer to the breast
cancer problem, no known research was carried out on the effects of radiation on the breast at that time.
What the Studies Reveal
Because of rising concerns in the scientific community, recent studies reveal some troubling results. For
your education, we
will briefly review those studies, which point out that mammograms do not reduce mortality, and radiation
raises the risks of causing cancer on two fronts: it damages DNA and surrounding tissues—a deadly
combination.
January, 2000
A 1999 study revealed that there had been no decrease in breast cancer mortality in Sweden, where
screening had been recommended since 1985. The decision to screen was based on eight internationally
controlled mammogram trials, including about 500,000 women. Due to unsatisfactory results in Sweden, a
review of the studies was conducted and found that the results of the original eight studies were
misinterpreted and, therefore, misrepresented. The analysis concluded that for every 1,000 women
screened biennially for 12 years, one breast cancer was avoided, whereas the total number of deaths
was increased by six. There is no reliable evidence to date, which says that mammography screening
decreases breast cancer mortality (Lancet 2000; 129-34).
2002 Radiation Research
The Low-Dose Radiation Research Program was funded by a grant supported by the US Department of
Education and the National Institute of Health. Conclusions showed that low energy X-rays of mammograms
produce an increased biological risk, as opposed to higher energy photons of other types of X-rays.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California cell biologist Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff
shows that exposure to ionizing radiation creates a wound that promotes a micro environment in the tissue
surrounding breast cells that can cause cells to become cancerous. “Our studies demonstrate that radiation
elicits rapid and persistent global alterations in the mammary gland micro environment. Radiation exposure
can cause breast cancer by pathways other than genetic mutations (DNA damage).” Ionizing radiation is a
well-established carcinogen, but previous studies of its cancer-causing effects have largely focused on
damage to the breast cells’ DNA. Barcellos-Hoff has pursued a different tactic. “It takes
a tissue to make a tumor,” she says. “Cells don’t become tumors without cooperation from the surrounding
tissue.”
2002 Saarland University, Hamburg, Germany
It is generally accepted that ionizing radiation causes double and multiple strand breaks in DNA, which is an
accepted cause of cancer. Research reveals that exposure to low-dose radiation causes damage so
extensive to the DNA that it is unable to repair itself, resulting in a permanent genetic mutation of the DNA.
2004 Radiation Research
The Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X-Rays To help resolve the controversy
regarding the risk of mammography breast screening, a study was carried out with a grant to the University
of Birmingham, UK. A comparison was made using an actual low-dose mammogram X-ray machine and a
standard high-dose X-ray (chest X-ray). Results suggested that the risks (of developing cancer) associated
with mammogram screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed (which was
1%), making the estimated increased risk of 5% for each exposure. The authors suggested that the risk-
benefit relationship of mammography exposure clearly needs to be re-evaluated.
Prevention is always the best policy Ionizing radiation damage is cumulative, which means each exposure
multiplies the risk. The fact that the risk exists at all justifies the necessity to use a safe, noninvasive method
of screening to avoid causing the disease that mammograms are designed to detect. Clearly, one way to
prevent breast cancer is to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. In spite of its risks, ionizing radiation is
widely supported by those who benefit in various ways from its use, as well as results of mammographies on
otherwise healthy women. It is an elective procedure, not a requirement. You have a choice. When a
mammogram is recommended, consider whose interest it serves to recommend exposing you to a
known risk. Take responsibility for your best interest.
Thermal Imaging is a safe, affordable and reliable option. It can prevent breast disease by
helping you to monitor your breast health and to avoid ionizing radiation. In addition, it can detect
previously undetected signs of microscopic development in time to make choices that can change the
outcome. Even if you have had only one mammogram, then you are at risk. Early detection is vital.
Remember, the best way to manage a disaster is to prevent it!
Just added: 2007
"This study points out the need for the use of other techniques to find cancer at its earliest stages," said Dr.
John Niederhuber, director of the national Cancer Institute, which helped pay for the study. Dr. Joshua
Fenton of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues studied more than 429,000 mammograms for
their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About 24 million screening mammograms are
taken in the U.S. each year. "We would guess maybe 25 to 30 percent of facilities have adopted this, maybe
more in urban centers where they have a high volume," said Fenton. The results "constitute a substantial hit
to this technology" and will "surprise and disappoint" most doctors who read mammograms, Dr. Ferris Hall of
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, wrote in a commentary. Hall said Medicare pays an extra $20 for
mammograms that are read by computer, a financial incentive that "was mandated by a heavily lobbied
Congress, despite little evidence-based data in support of its value at the time." Complicating the issue is
the fact that the field is changing so quickly, further research may not be practical, he said. "Such studies
will be expensive, controversial, indeterminate, or quickly passe owing to the emergence of new technology,"
Hall wrote. Three such computer-aided devices, costing $160,000 to $240,000, have been approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Most of the facilities in the Fenton study used units from R2 Technology
Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif. the first to get FDA approval, in 1998. R2 is owned by Hologic Inc.. Kodak and
iCAD Inc., of Nashua, N.H., also make units. The research team used mammograms taken from 1998 to
2002 at 43 medical facilities in three states, seven of which switched to computer-aided detection in the
middle of the study. With human-read mammograms, 98 out of every 1,000 women were mistakenly told they
were free of cancer. When the readings were done with the help of a computer, that number rose to 128 out
of 1,000, without significantly increasing the number of tumors that were spotted by X-ray. In addition, the
researchers said the computer programs tended to focus on the least-dangerous types of cancers. "There
was no clear benefit in terms of breast cancer detection," Fenton said in a telephone interview. The
researchers also estimated that if every medical center used computer-assisted detection, it would cost the
U.S. health care system an extra $550 million, an increase of 18 percent in the cost of doing breast cancer
screening exams. There is a lot of pressure to improve detection. Hall said missed tumors are the most
common source of lawsuits against radiologists, and in as many as half of all cancer cases, doctors turned
out to have missed the tumor in an earlier mammogram. And with many medical students avoiding the field
because of the stress, there is a shortage of good mammographers. Hall said one alternative would be
magnetic resonance imaging. Although it may detect 10 times as many cancers than mammography or
physical examination, it is also 10 times more expensive. "In certain populations of women, MRIs are much
more sensitive to picking up cancers than mammography," said the chairwoman of the American Cancer
Society's Breast Cancer Advisory Group, Dr. Christy Russell. For those women, the chance of an MRI
finding a tumor is 70 percent or higher, compared to just 30 percent for mammography or ultrasound, she
said.
Disclaimer
| A Therapy Above Medical Thermal Imaging 727-408-2268 |