Here is an option that is now becoming available around the world As thermal imaging has been demonstrated in numerous studies to be capable of measuring these heat signatures years before conventional technologies can see a mass, and as the procedure uses no radiation, compression of breast tissue and as it is totally safe, thermography or DITI provides for a safe early warning detection system. http://www.ebme.co.uk/articles/clinical-engineering/65-medical-thermography This is available in the US training as well. http://www.thermologyonline.org/Breast/breast_thermography_what.htm While the rest of the world is using it with success the US does not like it A number of medical authorities have concluded that thermography has no proven medical value, including the American Medical Association, the Office of Health Technology Assessment (OHTA), and the American Academy of Neurology. Based on a study by the OHTA, the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) withdrew Medicare coverage of thermography. http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/1_99/0029.html
When I was young, I have never heard of breast cancer, it is more of liver cancer. But now it seems that breast cancer is getting prevalent. Maybe because so many celebrities are afflicted with that disease. What is know is mammogram to test for lumps in the breast and this is the first time I've learned of that thermal test to determine a very early stage of breast cancer even before a lump appears. I think that would revolutionize the treatment of breast cancer since they say that the earlier it is detected, the higher chance to be treated.
You said the rest of the world is using it successfully. I said Australian isn't. Mammograms can be a problem for dense breasts but mine aren't dense.
I know some people around here are using 3D breast imaging. I don't know if that is the same thing or not. It seems like all of tests find some cancers and miss others. They have some false positives and miss others. My doctor freaked me out when time when I had a mamogram done. He called me early in the morning and thought he saw something,,but when he compared to to another mamogram I had done a few years ago, said it was not significant...Thanks..I mean, couldn't you have compared them first before you freaked me out?? That was not an experience I want to repeat any time soon.
A quick google search Showing results for Medical thermography in Australia Search instead for Medical thermography in Australlia Search Results Australian Thermography Clinic Locations | Breast Screening Australia breastscreeningaustralia.com/australian-thermography-clinic-locations/ Jan 13, 2011 - Australian Thermography Clinic Locations. January 13 ... Wright Clinical Thermal Imaging ... Salus – Complementary Medicine Specialists Breast Thermography | Breast Screening Australia breastscreeningaustralia.com/breast-thermography/ Dec 3, 2010 - Breast thermography is a 15 minute non invasive test of physiology. ... most practical benefit to the general public and to the medical profession. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia - ACCT Approved Thermography Clinic ... www.thermologyonline.org/clinics/.../Australia/NSW/.../clinic_crowsnest.... Crows Nest, NSW, Australia - ACCT Approved Thermography Clinic - The American College of Clinical Thermology (ACCT) Breast Thermography. ... Ecological Medicine Pauline Rose 425 Pacific Hwy. Crows Nest NSW, Australia 2065 Cancer Screening - Statement on use of thermography to detect breast ... www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/...nsf/.../br-policy-thermography Dec 11, 2013 - BreastScreen Australia's policy and information on the use of ... Zealand; Australian Medical Association (no position on thermography to date) ... Statement on use of thermography to detect breast ... - Cancer Australia canceraustralia.gov.au › ... › Position statements Cancer Australia Cancer Australia does not recommend the use of thermography for the early detection of breast cancer. Breast thermography, also known as thermal breast ...
http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/br-policy-thermography This is where I got my info and it says small tumors won't be found with thermography. The title of your post is ...Catching Breast Cancer early.
I guess it is in Australia and of course the medical system does not like it. Which would be obvious they have a lot of money tied up in mammography and thermography is cheap. Also thermography does not cause cancer so we should not use it Ha Ha. In 2005, the National Toxicology Program classified X-radiation and gamma radiation as known human carcinogens. Although some scientists challenge this premise (e.g., Habron, 2012), most agree that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation (Brenner, 2003; NRPB, 1995). A 2005 National Research Council report confirms this finding, stating that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses [of ionizing radiation] without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans” (NRC, 2005). Radiation damage to genes is cumulative over a lifetime (Boice, 2001). Repeated low-dose exposures over time may have the same harmful effects as a single high-dose exposure. Exposure to ionizing radiation is the longest-established and most firmly established environmental cause of human breast cancer in both women and men. Ionizing radiation can increase the risk for breast cancer through a number of different mechanisms, including direct mutagenesis (causing changes in the structure of DNA), genomic instability (increasing the rate of changes in chromosomes, therefore increasing the likelihood of future mutations) (Broeks, 2010: Goldberg, 2003; Morgan, 2003; Wright, 2004), and changes in breast cell microenvironments that can lead to damaged regulation of cell-to-cell communication within the breast (Barcellos-Hoff, 2005; Tsai, 2005). Ionizing radiation not only affects cells that are directly exposed, but can also alter the DNA, growth, and cell-to-cell interactions of neighboring cells, a phenomenon referred to as the “bystander effect” (Little, 2003; Murray, 2007b). http://www.breastcancerfund.org/cle...als-and-breast-cancer/ionizing-radiation.html In 2005, the National Toxicology Program classified X-radiation and gamma radiation as known human carcinogens. Although some scientists challenge this premise (e.g., Habron, 2012), most agree that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation (Brenner, 2003; NRPB, 1995). A 2005 National Research Council report confirms this finding, stating that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses [of ionizing radiation] without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans” (NRC, 2005). Radiation damage to genes is cumulative over a lifetime (Boice, 2001). Repeated low-dose exposures over time may have the same harmful effects as a single high-dose exposure. Exposure to ionizing radiation is the longest-established and most firmly established environmental cause of human breast cancer in both women and men. Ionizing radiation can increase the risk for breast cancer through a number of different mechanisms, including direct mutagenesis (causing changes in the structure of DNA), genomic instability (increasing the rate of changes in chromosomes, therefore increasing the likelihood of future mutations) (Broeks, 2010: Goldberg, 2003; Morgan, 2003; Wright, 2004), and changes in breast cell microenvironments that can lead to damaged regulation of cell-to-cell communication within the breast (Barcellos-Hoff, 2005; Tsai, 2005). Ionizing radiation not only affects cells that are directly exposed, but can also alter the DNA, growth, and cell-to-cell interactions of neighboring cells, a phenomenon referred to as the “bystander effect” (Little, 2003; Murray, 2007b). http://www.breastcancerfund.org/cle...als-and-breast-cancer/ionizing-radiation.html
Your answer to everything about the medical system is that's it's about money, when some of the biggest money making scams involve false cures and and selling basically placebos to gullible people. I'm not worried about a mammogram causing breast cancer. All poor women can get a free mammogram.
It would be very naive to think a billion dollar business is in the job of putting itself out of business. Anything to help that business like causing more cancer is just good business. Go out of its way to prevent anyone from learning ways of curing cancer is also good business. If they had a way of detecting the cancer one way causes cancer and the other did not which would they chose. The answer is obvious the one that makes more money.
I'm glad I don't share those views. I don't know anyone that got breast cancer from having a mammogram once A year. In fact I don't know anyone personally that has had breast cancer. In your view, every dr is evil and just wants you to get cancer so they can make money....that's pretty bizarre thinking and I'm not even going to bother any more replying. I'll stick with what I believe and what has worked for me and you can stick to your beliefs.
In your view, every dr is evil and just wants you to get cancer so they can make money....that's pretty bizarre thinking and I'm not even going to bother any more replying. This is not my view at all, doctors are the best in emergency medicine and surgery when needed they are the best in the world