Thermography vs. Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection: Who Benefits Most?

superadmin , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 11.25.37 AM

The Dangers, Discomforts, and Lack of Appropriate Detection from Mammogram Screening

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women regardless of race or ethnicity. It is the most common cause of death from cancer among Hispanic women and the second most common cause of death from cancer among white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native women. (Source)

So the fear motive of protecting against breast cancer with early detection is easy to understand. And it is used constantly by all government and non-government cancer groups to promote frequent mammograms for women from age 40 and up. It’s considered a standard of care.

Many insurance plans will pay for mammograms fully or with very low co-payments. But there has been growing evidence of harm from mammograms that includes increased over-diagnosis resulting in a significant amount of treatments that were never necessary.

Until 2002, the cancer industry’s standard of care for detecting or “screening” for breast cancer required annual mammograms. All the cancer foundations, organizations, and fundraising groups became cheerleaders for annual mammograms for women aged 40 or 45 and up. 

Some were reported to have benefited from mammogram industry financial contributions.

 

Thermography – Safer and More Effective with Early Cancer Detection

Thermography offers the ability to detect inflammation and suspicious blood vessel activities that point to disease and dysfunction without radiation. It does so by producing 3D color imaging produced from the body’s internal variations of heat in the body.

In other words, instead of sending radio waves into the body to get a picture of what’s going on inside the body, a special extremely sensitive infrared ray camera that does not come into contact with the body “takes a picture” of the infrared energies emanating from the body’s temperature variations. 

The thermal radiation’s computer takes the slight thermal variations and creates visual color representations that appear on the machinery’s screen. Those images are then copied for further scrutiny.

And it is able to detect abnormalities that can lead to a disease before the first signs of cancer tumors show up. This allows women to take advantage of lifestyle and dietary changes before cancer tumors appear and avoid chemotherapy, radiation therapies, and mastectomies.

The focus of the mammogram vs thermogram turf war centers on breast cancer. But techniques with thermograms are able to spot markers that are precursors to other cancers and allow natural preventative measures that mainstream oncologists are not trained for and/or don’t want to be.

But not all medical insurance providers will shell out the $200 or less for a breast thermogram. Mammograms cost only slightly less and are uniformly covered by both private and government medical insurers.

Avoiding mainstream oncology’s highly profitable options for treatment may be a major reason why mainstream oncologists constantly assert that thermography cannot detect tumors and is not a bonafide early detection device. It hampers radiologists’ revenue as well. 

Although the FDA has approved mammogram machinery and technology, even as an adjunct to mammograms, both the CDC and FDA agree with the same assertions as oncologists that thermograms are not valid substitutes for mammograms with breast cancer screening. 

Thermography doesn’t always create a tumor picture the way mammograms appear. But mammograms don’t always detect some types of tumors and often mistake non- cancerous lesions as tumors. (Source)

Instead of undergoing chemotherapy or surgery unnecessarily, better diet and supplement choices could easily keep those lesions from becoming cancerous. 

Breast cancer cells take around five to eight years to develop enough for mammogram tumor detection. Just in time for costly, profitable treatments.

But because of thermography’s extreme sensitivity to infrared emissions from slight temperature variations, its images render the earliest signs of breast cancer and/or a pre-cancerous state of the breast. 

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 11.22.15 AM

This allows plenty of time to adjust one’s diet and lifestyle to strengthen the immune system and not be subjected to the coercion and intimidation used by mainstream oncology to force women into chemo or radiation or surgery or mastectomy without a second opinion on treatments.

Thermography’s Future for Those Who Aren’t Bound by Mainstream Medicine is Expansive

The myopic perspective of the breast cancer screening technology turf war inhibits the bigger picture of what thermograms provide for other precancerous conditions throughout the body as well as determining gastrointestinal imbalances or inflammatory conditions.

There is even a future for thermograms in dentistry. Thermography is predicted to re-emerge in the near future as a unique research tool in dentistry. (Source) 

Thermography imaging eliminates X-rays, so the brain is spared from radiation while allowing better early detection of inflammatory dental conditions before infections occur or for analyzing pathways for dental surgeries.

Homeopathic doctor and Canadian board-certified clinical thermographer Alexander Mostovoy explains:

Over the years at our clinic, we have imaged thousands of women using infrared thermography. In many cases, we have clearly seen cases of inflammation in the dental area using this heat-sensing technology. Many of these cases are caused by a low- grade infection and inflammation and have, through further testing, been attributed to dental or oral issues, such as issues related to root-canal-treated teeth.

Thermography and Dental Pathology

Thermography is also highly useful for detecting various dysfunctions and precancerous conditions of the head and neck region, including early thyroid cancer detection while avoiding radiation hazards to the brain.

The unique significance of thermography is it is both a qualitative and quantitative assessment, which can result in pre-emptive early preventative measures as well as monitoring progression or regression of underlying causes of several diseases in a systematic manner. 


See the full article here.


The Breast Kept Secret Movie Preview

superadmin , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Well-known medical practitioners discuss mammography and thermography. Have a look to hear what they have to say.


Surgeons Admit That Mammography Is Outdated and Harmful to Women

superadmin , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Every year, millions of women flock to their doctors to get their annual mammograms, a breast cancer screening procedure that involves pressing a woman’s breasts between two metal platforms to scope out tumors. But surgeons everywhere are starting to question the controversial practice, which studies show isn’t even an effective screening tool, and is actually harmful to the bodies of women who receive it.

The public is told that mammograms are the only way to catch breast cancer early, but a review of eight scientific trials evaluating the procedure, found that mammography is neither effective nor safe. After looking at data on more than 600,000 women between the ages of 39 and 74 who underwent the procedure on a routine basis, researchers found that many women are misdiagnosed. Many of these same women are consequently mistreated with chemotherapy, resulting in their rapid demise.

As published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the review concluded that mammography causes more harm than good, because many more women end up being misdiagnosed and mistreated than those actually avoiding the development of terminal breast cancer. Thus, the procedure known as mammography is an outdated scourge that belongs in the history books of failed medical treatments, and not at the forefront of women’s medicine.

“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily,” the authors concluded.

Group of top medical experts admits mammography does more harm than good

One year after this review was published, a second one published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) came to a similar conclusion. A team of medical professionals that included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer and a health economist, decided that the medical industry’s claims about the benefits of mammography are essentially bunk.

They found that for every 1,000 women screened in the U.S. over a 10-year annual screening period beginning at age 50, one breast cancer death would be prevented, while a shocking 490 to 670 women would have a false positive, while 70 to 100 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy. Between three and 14 of these women, the study found, would also be over-diagnosed for a non-malignant form of cancer that never even would have become “clinically apparent.”

This study out of Switzerland corroborates another out of Canada – the 2014 Canadian National Breast Screening Study – which concluded in lockstep with the others that mammography screenings do not reduce mortality rates from breast cancer any better than a simple physical examination. In other words, the procedure is completely unnecessary, and in many cases exceptionally harmful.

And on and on the list goes, with data out of Norway and elsewhere confirming that mammography isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. U.S. data spanning the course of nearly 40 years shows that more women are over- or misdiagnosed with breast cancer because of mammograms than are successfully early-diagnosed with breast cancer in such a way as to protect against metastasization. This represents an exceptionally poor track record that calls into question why mammography continues to be used when it clearly doesn’t work.

“I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that tumor between two plates, because that would spread it,” says general practitioner Dr. Sarah Mybill, as quoted in the documentary film The Promise.

 

To see the original article, click here.