Thermography is gaining ground as a valid alternative to mammograms given that more women are seeking non-radiation alternatives for identification of breast anomalies amid a very x-ray happy medical community that seems unconcerned with long term exposure risk. But, are the benefits of thermography for real?
I myself have never had a mammogram. I’ve followed in the footsteps of my wise 86 year old mother who once said, “Why look for breast cancer with a test that can actually cause breast cancer?”
If only our conventional medical community made decisions using this much common sense!
By some estimates, up to 20% of all breast cancers diagnosed in the United States annually are actually caused by the cumulative radiation effects of mammograms. This data point makes the recommendation for annual or semi-annual mammograms after age 40 absolutely ludicrous!
If you don’t have breast cancer when you start screening with mammograms, you probably will years later after all that cumulative ionizing radiation exposure!
Another major problem with mammograms is the compression factor. This sometimes painful aspect of mammograms risks the spread of any breast cancer that may be present. This from Dr. Samuel Epstein MD, one of the world’s top cancer experts:
As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle “cancerous breasts with care– for fear of accidentally disseminating cells” and spreading cancer. Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers. (1)
So, what to do if you need to safely screen for breast cancer?
Thermography, or Medical Infrared Imaging, has been heralded by many in the alternative health community as a safe option to mammograms. Indeed, thermography is a very safe and effective breast screening technology. It very accurately identifies the vascular changes associated with breast cancer well in advance of when a mammogram would identify a problem. (2)
In addition, thermography is a much better choice than mammograms in these instances:
- Women on hormone replacement
- Mothers who are nursing
- Fibrocystic breasts
- Large breasts
- Dense breast tissue
- Breast implants
In these situations, there is much difficulty in reading mammograms accurately. When using thermography, however, breast differences do not cause any interpretation difficulties.
Here’s what Christiane Northrup MD, a fan of thermography, has to say:
“The most promising aspect of thermography is its ability to spot anomalies years before mammography.”
“Today, women are encouraged to get a mammogram, so they can find their breast cancer as early as possible. With thermography as your regular screening tool, it’s likely that you would have the opportunity to make adjustments to your diet, beliefs, and lifestyle to transform your cells before they became cancerous. Talk about true prevention.” (3)
Before you run to the phone and schedule your thermogram, however, there are a few more things you need to know.
Time for the reality check.
Thermography Pitfalls You Need to Know About
While thermography is definitely a helpful and nontoxic approach to detecting breast cancer at any stage, it is not the perfect alternative to mammograms as it is frequently portrayed.
First of all, thermography is rarely covered by medical insurance. As a result, the typical fee of several hundred dollars for the initial screen with a required followup screen costing an additional one or two hundred dollars within 3-6 months is completely out of pocket for the vast majority of patients. A single thermogram each year after the initial 2 screenings is recommended – another expense. For many women, this large personal expense is simply out of the question especially in the current economic environment.
Even in my home state of Florida where the law stipulates that all medical insurance providers provide policyholders with a free mammogram every 2 years for women aged 40-50 and an annual mammogram for women over 50 with no deductible or co-pay required, women still must pay out of pocket as no substitution of a thermogram for a mammogram is permitted.
Thermogram? You Might Be Forced to Have a Mammogram Anyway
A second very real problem with going the thermography route is that you frequently get forced into getting a mammogram anyway. All that money out of pocket and you still end up getting doused with radiation!
The reason is that thermography detects any breast anomalies not just cancer. An example is a benign cyst. So, women frequently end up at the gynecologist after having a thermogram which identified anything that looked remotely suspicious. This could be something as simple and common as a clogged milk duct.
Once at the gynecologist, women are shocked to learn that a mammogram is almost always required. Substituting a simple breast ultrasound as the first line diagnosis test to examine the anomaly is not allowed. You have to get a mammogram first even though mammograms are far less effective at identifying breast cancer!
It’s such a racket – I call it the Mammogram Mafia. Those mammograms are such a nice residual moneymaker for (some) GYNs. The situation is much like the kickbacks doctors receive for prescribing certain drugs. You didn’t actually think they would let you bypass it so easily did you?
A large out of pocket expense for a thermogram only to end up forced to have a mammogram is a source of extreme frustration for women trying to avoid mammograms in the first place.
UPDATE: Good news! Women can now get a annual breast ultrasound without a prescription. This means you can skip the mammograms FOREVER! And, a breast ultrasound is about half the price of a thermogram. More on how to schedule this service in this article about the benefits of breast ultrasound instead of mammograms.
Are Thermograms Helpful At All?
Given these very real pitfalls, does it make sense for women to use thermography at all? In my opinion, yes, thermograms are an extremely beneficial test.
However, a woman needs to go down that road with her eyes completely open knowing that her battle to forgo mammograms is not necessarily over!
Be sure to have a discussion with your chosen thermographer before the appointment. This will ensure that he/she has a way for you to get only a breast ultrasound and not a mammogram if a suspicious area is detected.
In my local area, there are thermographers that can provide this service, and others that cannot. Be sure to ask!
My Thermography Adventure
Here’s what happened to me. I got a routine thermogram which discovered a suspicious area which turned out to only be a clogged milk duct (my daughter was weaning at that time) but since we didn’t know what it was when the thermography was done, I was referred for a simple breast ultrasound.
I then discovered to my dismay that no one in town would give me just a breast ultrasound. Unless of course, I had a mammogram first!
Fortunately, coming from a medical family, I was able to circumvent the mammogram madness. I obtained a script for a breast ultrasound with no mammogram. Even then, the battle wasn’t yet over! When I went in for my breast ultrasound, I was read the riot act about forgoing the mammogram by the attending physician. This, after she admitted that a mammogram was not even an appropriate test for me as I have dense breast tissue!
She also denied that each mammogram (4 films per breast) exposes a woman to approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) of exposure. This is about 1000 times more than a chest x-ray. Amazing that she so vehemently denied this fact even though this information is clearly documented by the Institute of Medicine (4).
These people are so brainwashed! It’s really sad and downright dangerous for those who don’t research for themselves. Clueless, misinformed docs. They are everywhere my friends!
In summary, thermography is a fantastic diagnostic tool that is clearly superior to mammograms. But, be sure to have your ducks in a row about what you will do if anything suspicious is found before you pay all that money out of pocket!
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
More Information
170 Scientific Studies Confirm the Dangers of Soy
When Breast Cancer Isn’t Bad News
Komen (Not) for the Cure: The Complete and Utter Pinkwashing of America
The Dangers of Estrogenic Foods, Herbs, and Supplements to Breast Health
As long as the theoretical framework on breast cancer and cancer progression remains highly unscientific (discussed in the e-book “The Mammogram Myth: The Independent Investigation Of Mammography The Medical Profession Doesn’t Want You To Know About” by Rolf Hefti) it is quite probable that any screening test of early detection leads to significant overdiagnosis, harming millions of women in the most severe ways. Women ought to understand that neither mammography nor thermography is truly about prevention. Rather, they are tools of diagnosis, leading to potential treatments. If a culture-wide shift in awareness and action towards prevention measures, away from diagnostic-treatment methods, were manifested breast cancer occurrence would be a trickle.
I heard a while back about a no-radiation diagnostic tool that involved water, with no pressure on the breasts. I think they were developing it in Israel, but I don’t remember for sure. Has anyone else heard of this?
I tried thermography and here is my experience: 1. Dr. calls and says something is wrong and to make an appt with my OB gyn 2. My Ob gyn orders and ultrasound 3. The ultrasound finds something and they order a boatload of mammograms. 4. I have a lump and end up with a biopsy 5. Here is the kicker: immediately after the biopsy, when tissues are still freshly broken, they take another boatload of mammograms. I really literally thought my breast was going to squirt right out of the hole they had just made. Really? does it make sense to poke a rather large hole in your breast and then squeeze it until tears are coming out of your eyes, just a few minutes after? 5. Since the biopsy was negative, I just ignore the lump for about 4 months 6. I am bothered by the pain and make my own appt. with a surgeon who removes the lump.
If I had it to do over, I would just skip the OB gyn and go straight to the surgeon next time I have a distinctive lump, have it removed and biopsied.
So now back to thermography..I am not sure i will have it again. I mean, what if they see something? Will I have the mammograms of the next 10 years worth again? I hope this helps somebody.
@Patty H.
When you say something came back from a thermography I’d like to know what. If you got a 3 or higher (or maybe even a 2) they are going to tell you to follow up. And when you follow up I think you can question your doctor and the number of mammograms they give you. I’ve had 3s come back and haven’t seen a regular MD because I wanted to try other things. I would continue to follow up with thermography and track what’s going on with your breast.
I haven’t yet ordered them, but this bra looks good. It is at DreamProductsCatalog.com. I have not been to their site because I’ll just order some from the ad I found in a Country magazine. they are inexpensive. For a set of three bras, they are $11.97 not counting shipping. I’m going to order them right now, by mail. Thanks for reminding me.
I’ve been wearing this bra for about a year now and love it! I have heavy, pendulous breasts and this does not do any lifting but holds everything in place. I’m beyond worrying about lifting at 69. I did find that they grayed in the wash.
Yours may have gotten gray, but mine will get orange because of the iron in our water. 🙂 I was going to order mine today but the P.O. was closed so now I have to wait until next week.
I am not large breasted and I almost never wear a bra. The challenge I come up against is when I need to dress up (which for me means not wearing “barn clothes”) and summertime. I don’t like my nipples to show as I think this looks indecent. I have tried wearing a tank top under my shirt but find this doesn’t really take care of the problem and it means a whole other layer – too much in the heat. I think pockets on the front of shirts is a solution but haven’t had time to make myself shirts like this. I am not going to wear pasties! I don’t like the shirts with shelf bras because I find even this is too binding. What is everyone else doing?
[the more non-invasive tests available the better in my opinion. That way mm can be the last resort] ~Shirley
————————————————-
Dr. Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
http://www.gordonresearch.com
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/researchers-explore-blood-test-to-detect-early-breast-cancer-201210035359?utm_source=HEALTHbeat&utm_medium=email&utm_content=body2b&utm_campaign=HB100412&j=29609466&[email protected]&l=16278673_HTML&u=344024694&mid=148797&jb=0
Harvard Health Publications
Harvard Medical School
Researchers explore blood test to detect early breast cancer
Posted October 03, 2012, 12:44 pm
Stephanie Watson, Executive Editor, Harvard Women’s Health Watch
Whenever we hear about a breakthrough in breast cancer–a disease that might have taken the life of a mother, sister, or favorite aunt–it’s natural to feel a great sense of hope.
One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and many more will be affected by it through a friend or loved one. My mother had breast cancer. Fortunately, she was cured. With my lineage, I know there’s a good chance the disease is in my future, too.
So when I heard that researchers at Kansas State University have developed a blood test that can rapidly detect breast cancer (as well as non-small cell lung cancer) in its earliest stages, I was intrigued. With breast cancer–as well as most other cancers–early detection is essential. The sooner the disease is found, the better the chance treatment will be successful.
How the test works
According to cancer researchers Stefan Bossmann and Deryl Troyer, their experimental test can identify cancer before symptoms appear by detecting unique enzyme patterns given off by cancer cells. The test exposes a tiny amount of a person’s blood to iron nanoparticles coated with amino acids and a dye. The particles interact with cancer enzymes to form signature patterns, which doctors can detect.
“We can see cancers that do not show up with current imaging technology, and that are too small to be seen by other methods,” says Dr. Bossmann, who is a professor of chemistry at Kansas State University. Cancers from different types of cells (breast vs. lung, for example) give off slightly different enzyme signatures.
The researchers say their test can detect very early breast cancers (stages 0 and 1), as well as early lung cancers (stages 1 and 2), within an hour, with 95% accuracy. They discovered this after testing their method on 32 participants with various stages of breast or lung cancer, as well as on a 12-person control group without cancer.
Questions and cautions
“These findings are very exciting, but extremely preliminary,” says Dr. Judy Garber, director of the Center for Cancer Genetics and Prevention at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. The study was very small, it hasn’t yet been published, and it still leaves several unanswered questions.
For example, what happens if the test does identify a very tiny, very early cancer? Will a follow-up CT or MRI scan be able to detect it to pinpoint its location? If not, will doctors still need to wait until the cancer grows before they can remove it? Also, will the test lead to real increases in survival, or will patients who test positive be subjected to unnecessary tests and treatments for an early-stage cancer that might never have spread? (This is currently part of a big debate about the prostate-specific antigen blood test for prostate cancer.)
A British team is about to launch a large study to find a different type of blood test for early breast cancer. By taking blood samples from thousands of women attending breast cancer screening clinics, they hope to find genetic markers in DNA that signal an increased risk for the disease.
“The bottom line is that screening for early cancer in healthy people must be done with great care, and tests must show not only that they can detect cancer early, but also that it makes a difference when they do,” Dr. Garber says.
“This is an interesting application of nanotechnology on a difficult problem,” she adds. “It is very early in its development, and will need to be validated in large population-based screening studies.”
Dr. Bossmann agrees that his research is still in its preliminary stages. “It was very encouraging, but this is maybe the fifth step on a long, long way,” he says. Next, he and his colleagues plan to study the test in people with pancreatic cancer. They’re also launching a study using blood samples from more than 200 women with breast cancer, in collaboration with the University of Kansas. He says it could be five years before the test comes into practical use–and that’s only if it proves effective in large-scale studies.
No medical miracles
As much as we long for a test that will spot breast cancer early enough to save our mothers, sisters, or even ourselves, we need to remember that there are no overnight successes in medicine. There is only meticulously conducted research, tested and retested in large groups of people until a positive result is achieved.
A rapid and accurate test for early-stage breast cancer may very well be perfected someday. Until then, the best thing women can do is to follow established screening guidelines, which for now means talking to their doctor about their risks, and getting regular mammograms.