Thermography Alternative to Mammography

[Guest guest]

THERMOGRAPHSY AS MAMMOGRAPHY ALTERNATIVE

 

Please cross post this important information far and wide.

 

THERMOGRAPHY AS MAMMOGRAPHY ALTERNATIVE

Dr. Frank A. Charles, N.D.

Page 24 Fall/Winter 2001-2002 Carolina Health & Healing magazine

 

There probably isn't a person in America who has not been touched by a loved

one who has battled breast cancer. Medical science has not yet learned how

to prevent breast cancer but improvements in early detection promise a

greater chance of survival. One of the most exciting and recent developments

in the early detection of breast cancer is in the field of advanced medical

Digital Infrared Thermographic Imaging or DITI. Several new dramatic

improvements in DITI technology, coupled with patient awareness and new

medical warnings concerning overuse of ionizing radiation from x-rays, are

pushing DITI into the breast- screening arena. DITI now offers the

advantages of being totally painless, totally safe, low in cost, and

effective at any age. You may be asking: " If DITI is so great, why haven't

I heard much about it? Why hasn't DITI been utilized more for breast

screening if it offers all these advantages? "

 

PRESENTING DITI

Medical DITI has been used extensively in human medicine in the U.S.A.,

Europe and Asia for the past 20 years. While the technology lost favor some

time ago because of cumbersome equipment, difficult protocols and unrefined

technology, events are rapidly changing. New ultra-sensitive,

ultra-resolution DITI devices have many doctors and researchers believing

that DITI exams could prove to be a simpler, less expensive and more

effective complement to mammography than other newer imaging methods.

Recent concerns about mammography and the benefits of a new DITI

manufactured by a company from Australia, have resulted in DITI imaging

centers in other parts of the world now being able to offer this technology

to women interested in taking control of their health.

 

PROBLEMS WITH MAMMOGRAPHY

Until recently, mammography was considered to be our only option in breast

screening. That is rapidly changing as experts in the field of ionizing

radiation are questioning the long- term cumulative effects of these types

of procedures. The truth about mammography is that it may not be as safe or

effective as once believed.

Many informed experts are now questioning the detrimental effects from

cumulative radiation. The fact is that this area has not been properly

researched, especially considering the multiple-exposures being absorbed by

many individuals and the cumulative effects of radiation from mammography,

dental and other radiation sources.

Based on 40 years of research on the effects of low-dose radiation on

humans, John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., a renowned authority on the health effects

of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be

prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure from mammography and X-rays.

Dr. Gofman believes strongly that there is no " safe threshold " for exposure

to low level-level ionizing radiation.

Another potential concern about the mammogram is that it may, on

occasion, even help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During the

procedure, considerable pressure is placed on the woman's breast by the

mammography technologist as the breast is firmly squeezed between two flat

plastic surfaces. Dr. Lorraine Day, a pathologist and breast cancer

survivor, and other researchers have raised concerns about the negative

effects of breast compression.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Academy of Sciences

admit that mammography promotes cancer. Their justification for continuing

to endorse mammography is that the incidence of cancer is small in relation

to the number of early detection cases.

However, Dr. Charles B. Simone, founder of the Simone Protective Cancer

Center and a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the

NCI, says that earlier detection has not resulted in longer life when the

data is really analyzed.

Here are some other comments on mammography:

" By the time a tumor is large enough to be seen by a mammogram, it is

usually 8 years old, has approximately 500 million cells, and is

approximately an inch long. " Lancet, Oct. 10, 1992.

" If all American women between forty and fifty were screened yearly by

mammogram, 40 out of every 100 cancers would be missed. " New England Journal

of Medicine, 328:176 1993.

" Half of all breast cancers in women under 45 are invisible on a

mammogram. " American Health, 1994

 

MORE ABOUT DITI

DITI has been recognized as a viable diagnostic tool since 1987 by the AMA

Council on Scientific Affairs, by the ACA Council on Diagnostic Imaging, by

the Congress of Neurosurgeons in 1988 and by the American Academy of

Physical Medicine and Rehabili-tation in 1990.

DITI works differently than tests such as x-ray, ultrasound or MRI. Those

technologies can detect changes in tissue structure only, because they are

anatomical tests. Tumors must be formed, dense and of a certain size to be

detected by mammography or ultrasound.

DITI is unique in its ability to show physiological change and metabolic

processes that are strongly indicative of breast abnormality. DITI can

detect subtle changes in breast temperature that indicate a variety of

breast diseases and abnormalities. Once abnormal heat patterns are detected

in the breast, follow up procedures are recommended to rule out or properly

diagnose cancer and a host of other diseases such as fibrocystic syndrome

and Paget¹s disease.

Breast tumors always involve increased vascularization and blood flow as

part of the body¹s immune response prior to tumor formation. Identifying

this increased vascularization and abnormal hypothermic patterning is what

gives DITI earlier detection advantages over mammography and other tests.

Many of the so-called false positives of DITI breast screening are often

true positive findings of angiogenesis (increased blood supply) preceding

actual tumor development. Detection in these early stages is unreliable by

conventional means, often due to the fact that the tumor has not yet

developed any mass or sufficient density.

For younger women in particular, DITI offers a major advantage. In women

under fifty, where tumor-doubling time is significantly increased,

mammography is not nearly as effective. The faster a malignant tumor grows,

the more infrared radiation it generates. This makes detection by DITI in

young women highly probable and accurate at an earlier stage than other

types of screening.

Non-cancerous masses show different patterns than cancerous masses under

DITI screening. DITI therefore has advantages in screening for cancerous

versus non-cancerous growths. It is possible and highly probable that with

increased use of DITI, many women could be spared unnecessary invasive

testing and radiation exposure.

While other more traditional methods such as MRI and ultrasound are being

developed and touted as new advancements in screening, they are much more

expensive and are still limited to structural changes even though they may

deliver an improvement in sensitivity to smaller tumors.

 

 

WHO SHOULD HAVE A DITI EXAM?

DITI is for any woman who would rather not undergo the discomfort of

mammogram radiation if not necessary. DITI is especially appropriate for

younger women between 20 and 50 whose denser breast tissue makes it more

difficult for mammography to pick up suspicious lesions. It is appropriate

for women who are outside of the mammogram screening guidelines due to

surgical procedures, breast implants or other contraindications. The DITI

session can provide a clinical marker to the doctor or thermographer

indicating that a specific area of the breast needs particularly close

examination.

A DITI exam takes 15 minutes, is pain-free and establishes a baseline

from which other exams can be compared in the future. If an abnormality is

found, your doctor can then plan accordingly and lay out a program to

further diagnose and /or monitor you until other standard testing is

positive. This allows for the earliest possible treatment.

DITI's role in breast cancer and other breast disorders is to help in

three ways: early detection, the monitoring of abnormal physiology, and the

establishment of risk factors for other developments of cancer. When used

with other procedures, the best possible evaluation of breast health is

made.

It is in this role that thermography provides its most practical benefit

to the general public and to the medical profession. It is certainly an

adjunct, and not a competitor, to the appropriate use of mammography. In

fact, thermography has the ability to identify patients at the highest risk

and actually increase the effective use of mammography imaging procedures.

For more information on DITI, or breast screening centers utilizing the

latest DITI technology, please contact the author.

Dr. Frank A. Charles, N.D. is President of the Vision Medical Group /VMG,

Inc. a medical equipment supplier and consultant to the health care industry

for DITI and other biological medicine technologies. He can be reached at

1-888-352-8570.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

 

A Consideration: X-Rays and Your Health

 

In 1965, the British Journal of Cancer published the first study indicating

that medical x-rays are a cause of breast cancer.

In 1969, I entered the nursing profession. In the past thirty-two years,

the " cure for cancer " is still " just around the corner " , and little has

changed, except that more women, and younger women are diagnosed with breast

cancer.

In 1997, I was introduced to John Gofman, MD, PhD, while researching an

article I was writing for Women’s Health Month.

According to Gofman’s study, seventy-five percent of all recent,

current, and incubating breast cancer cases are caused by radiation.

Gofman’s research, published in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, gives us

much to look at and consider.

Gofman contends that the resistance to new ideas is one of the major

obstacles that keep the public, and women especially, poorly informed about

prevention.

While we know that good wholesome, organic food is health promoting, we

also need to consider the impact of drinking pure water, reducing stress,

and getting good exercise. We have to consider the impact of environmental

poisons, poisons in food, and the increasing amount of EMF exposure.

Specifically these factors co-act with x-rays to make things worse. Much of

this research is addressed in the work of Samuel Epstein, MD, of the

University of Illinois at Chicago.

This is where education and prevention step in.

Radiation doses and disease risk can be reduced significantly without

reducing the quality of the diagnostic process. This is important because

breast tissue is very sensitive to ionizing radiation. Ultrasound and

thermography are screening methods that reduce exposure to ionizing

radiation.

According to Gofman, " if we care about preventing breast cancer, we will

establish a relentlessly positive program of measuring and recording x-ray

doses, so that physicians and patients will know if the United States is

succeeding, or not, in the one known action guaranteed to reduce breast

cancer rates. "

Dr. John Gofman is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at

the Univ. of California, Berkeley, former director of Biomedical Research at

Livermore National Lab, author of three scientific monographs on x-ray

health effects, and chair of Citizens for Nuclear Responsibility.

The X-rays and Health Project web site is www.X-raysandhealth.org

<http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/>