3D mammography doubles your radiation exposure

I received this from Dr Mercola today. Please share with your friends and family who still believe in going for mammograms instead of thermoscans.


Breast cancer has become big business, and routine mammography is one of its primary profit centers. While mammograms are touted as the best way to prevent breast cancer death, studies suggest otherwise.
The fact that you are reading this article gives you an enormous advantage, as most women are unaware of the mounting research indicating routine mammograms harm far more women than they save.
Despite the facts, the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep mammography alive by downplaying or outright ignoring its significant risks.
One of industry’s latest tactics is introducing a “new and improved” type of mammogram called 3D tomosynthesis, which is basically a CT scan for your breasts. Tomosynthesis is a clever re-branding of the status quo.
The multi-millions of dollars spent on creating these invasive machines could have been better utilized for educating women about cancer prevention; developing less dangerous technologies, such as ultrasound and infrared imaging; and inventing completely new and safer technologies.

3D Tomosynthesis: Three Steps Down on the Ladder of Progress

Two of the greatest mammogram risks are high radiation exposure and compression of breast tissue, which potentially causes cancer cells to spread. 3D tomosynthesis does not reduce or eliminate either of these risks!
In fact, with this “new and improved” technology, your radiation exposure is even greater than from standard mammograms—and by a significant margin. This is disturbing, as we know that all levels of ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
According to one study,¹ annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100,000 mammograms. Meaning, annual mammograms cause 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test.
The 3D mammogram requires multiple views in order to achieve three-dimensionality, so it stands to reason your total radiation exposure would be considerably higher than from a standard 2D mammogram.
With mammography, each breast is X-rayed at least twice—once from top to bottom and once diagonally from the outside in. With tomosynthesis, the X-ray tube rotates around the breast. Twenty-five exposures are taken, with up to two pictures per second. Multiple images result in higher radiation exposure. But the picture gets even worse...
3D mammography is not a stand-alone diagnostic test—it’s typically an add-on to the standard mammogram. So, not only do these 3D images prolong your exposure to radiation, but if you’ve already had a regular mammogram, they further compound your risk. This is certainly NOT progress—it’s a huge step backward, making breast cancer screening even more dangerous than before.

3D Mammograms May Actually TRIPLE Your Radiation Dose

Just how much more radiation are you getting with these new 3D mammograms? There are different estimates in circulation, partly because some folks are not including the radiation exposure from the standard mammogram into the total. When you add the 2D and 3D scans together, utilizing tomosynthesis at least doubles your radiation exposure, and some estimates have your exposure tripling, such as this 2011 study published in Radiology Today,² which states that:

"Because the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) exam requires two additional exposures over a standard mammogram, the total radiation dose from the combined 2D and tomosynthesis examination is three times that of a standard mammogram."

The authors note that both scans (2D and 3D) are required because studies done prior to FDA approval failed to conclusively show better sensitivity of 3D alone, compared to 2D imaging.³ They also state that it’s too early to know how useful this new breast imaging technology will be. Some insurance companies—Aetna⁴ for one—have rejected it, citing “insufficient evidence of its effectiveness.”
The bottom line is, the industry reports tomosynthesis has 1.5 to 2 times the radiation dose. The FDA reports it has double the dose. And the radiologists, who are looking at total exposure, report triple the dose over conventional mammograms. You can see this comparison in a chart on page 8 of an FDA Executive Summary, “Average Glandular Dose per Breast.”⁵
Tomosynthesis is being touted by the industry as being particularly helpful for identifying cancer in women with dense breast tissue. However, these women already have a four to six times greater risk of developing breast cancer. Knowing that ionizing radiation is a direct cause of cancer, how can a test that triples your radiation exposure be of any benefit if you have potentially cancer-prone breasts to begin with?

Smarter CT Scanning of Kids Would Prevent Over 3,000 Childhood Cancers Each Year

Women are not the only ones being excessively irradiated with unnecessary medical scans. Children are receiving more CT scans than ever, and CTs expose them to much more radiation than standard X-rays. The average American child gets seven radiation scans by the age of 18.

One CT scan exposes your child to 100 to 500 times more ionizing radiation than a standard X-ray. Your child’s growing body is even more sensitive to radiation than yours, being more likely to develop radiation-induced cancers, such as leukemia and cancers of the brain, lungs, thyroid and colon.
Previous studies have estimated that at least one-third of CT scans in children are medically unnecessary. How many children could be saved from cancer if these unnecessary CTs were eliminated and replaced with safer diagnostic tests? A team of researchers actually set out to answer this question. They calculated that smarter CT scanning of kids would prevent 3,020 children from developing radiation-induced cancers each year.⁶

Did You Know That 30 Percent of Breast Tumors Go Away on Their Own?

Getting back to breast cancer, it is important to realize that, if your immune system is healthy and strong, it’s capable of ridding your body of tumors—even cancerous ones. According to breast surgeon Susan Love of UCLA, at least 30 percent of tumors found on mammograms would go away if you did absolutely nothing.⁷ These tumors appear to be destined to stop growing on their own, shrink, and even go away completely. Nearly everyone has cancerous and pre-cancerous cells in their bodies by middle age, but not everyone develops cancer. The better you take care of your immune system, the better it will take care of you.
One way to strengthen your immune system is to minimize your exposure to mammograms and other sources of ionizing radiation, especially mega sources such as these new 3D scans and CTs. But you can also build up your immune system DAILY by making good diet and lifestyle choices.

Bad one-sided reporting

I received this news letter this morning and am happy to see that at least somebody knows what they are talking about with regard to thermography.

Don't Let Mainstream Mis-reporting about Cancer Kill Your Chances of Good Health

    I know I'm not the only person disappointed with the news media. It's rife with sensationalism and biased stories. Worst of all are the "journalists" who go in search of tabloid-style stories and don't bother with the details.

    What happens in these cases? We end up watching biased stories that appear to be objective but aren't. I recently saw a bogus news segment on thermograms, so I want to set the record straight on how this early detection tool can save you from breast cancer despite what some know-nothing journalists may say. It could save your life.

Mammograms versus thermograms

    The news report I saw knocking thermograms was based on ONE case of a woman who received a false negative, indicating she didn't have cancer when in fact she did. The reporter then trotted out sound bites from a couple of radiologists (who make their living off of X-rays) to say that of course thermograms aren't good for much and women should stick to mammograms.

    The news report didn't say a word about the terrible inaccuracy of mammograms, the countless false negatives and false positives. If we're going to condemn screening procedures for one false negative, mammograms would have been outlawed years ago.

    Early detection is key when it comes to any cancer, and breast cancer in particular. And it's a fact that thermograms are a safe, valuable early detection tool for breast cancer.

    The problem is, no single early detection tool is flawless. Mammograms are the most well-known, and they certainly detect some cancers. But they're also virtually useless when it comes to detecting tumours in the dense tissue of younger women.

    On top of that, mammograms can deliver false-negatives, false-positives, over-diagnosis, over-treatment, and radiation exposure. Last I checked, the false-negative rate was around 20 %—meaning mammograms will miss one out of five breast cancer tumours.

    They're also virtually useless for women under age 40—and though rare, it's the younger-than-forty crowd that develops some of the most malicious strains of breast cancer.

Consider thermograms instead

    Thermography is not "alternative medicine" as such. It's legal in the United States and widely used in Europe. In the U.S., conventional medicine has thrown it on the alternative medicine dust heap because it poses a threat to mammography, a huge, profitable industry with tens of thousands of people making a living off it.

    The FDA approves thermography as safe but doesn't officially support it and says it's not an alternative to mammography. But given the FDA's poor track record in supporting safe, non-invasive, proven health treatments, you shouldn't let that stop you from reaping the benefits of thermography screening.

    If you don't know about it, thermography is a form of digital infrared imaging that's completely safe—no radiation exposure whatsoever. It's based on the concept that early tumour sites project more heat than normal breast tissue. This is because of the increased blood vessel circulation and metabolic changes that take place when a tumour first develops.

    A thermogram pinpoints the abnormal heat levels that cancerous and — this is important — pre-cancerous areas generate. These areas pour out excessive heat long before a mammogram or any physical examination can detect a thing.

    But when it comes to thermograms, the key thing is to look at changes over time. So anyone who gets a single thermogram and thinks that's the last word on their risk factor is missing out on crucial information.

The single-bullet approach

    While I absolutely do think some screening tests are better than others, it riles me when a news program puts out a sensational story that paints a tool as worthless. It's like the medical industry taking a single-bullet approach to healthcare, trying to pigeon-hole illnesses into one-size-fits-all problems and solutions. Healthcare isn't that easy, and it never will be.

    Here's what you have to remember. Most high-tech screening procedures are flawed in some way. Take mammograms, for instance. They're just X-ray pictures of the breast. Not only do they not work well on dense breast tissue, as mentioned, but they're subject to error. The machine can malfunction. The technician who interprets your results can screw up. Or a tumour just won't show.

    In a thermogram, the tumour site needs to be caught at a certain growth stage. And again, interpretation is subject to human error. The images have to be interpreted by a skilled, experienced thermographer. And as I said earlier, it's the changes seen in a series of images, taken over a period of years, that most accurately flags cancer risk.

    If this sounds alarming, it really isn't. The abnormally hot areas that turn up in thermograms can take many, many years to develop into cancer. Immediate treatment isn't needed. You've got time to observe how they change — and to proceed to other tests such as biopsies and mammograms if they seem warranted. Cancerous areas literally get hotter every year, and a thermogram can often see this occurring long before an X-ray could ever detect a mass.

    We already know one in five cancers can't be detected by mammography. Some of those cancers can be picked up by a thermogram. On the flip side, there is the occasional tumour site that won't show up on a thermogram, but may with a mammogram or other screening test. In fact, some studies show an increased survival rate when mammography and breast thermography are used together.

Courtesy Lee Euler

 

Asparagus -- Who knew? 

 

 

This is not the first time that I have heard about the amazing properties of asparagus and would most certainly recommend it.

From a friend – My Mom had been taking the full-stalk canned style asparagus, pureed it and took 4 tablespoons in the morning and 4 tablespoons later in the day. She did this for over a month. She is on chemo pills for Stage 3 lung cancer in the pleural area and her cancer cell count went from 386 down to 125 as of this past week. Her oncologist said she will not need to see him for 3 months. THE ARTICLE: Several years ago I met a man seeking asparagus for a friend who had cancer. He gave me a copy of an article, entitled "Asparagus For Cancer" printed in the Cancer News Journal, December 1979. I will share it here, just as it was shared with me: I am a biochemist, and have specialized in the relation of diet to health or over 50 years. Several years ago, I learned of the discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. that asparagus might cure cancer. Since then, I have worked with him on his project. We have accumulated a number of favorable case histories. Here are a few examples: Case No. 1, A man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated. Within 1 year of starting the asparagus therapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a schedule of strenuous exercise. Case No. 2 , A successful businessman, 68 years old, suffered from cancer of the bladder for 16 years. After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he began taking asparagus. Within 3months, examinations revealed that his bladder tumor had disappeared and that his kidneys were normal. Case No. 3, On March 5th 1971, a man who had lung cancer was put on the operating table where they found lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable. The surgeon sewed him up and declared his case hopeless. On April 5th he heard about the Asparagustherapy and immediately started taking it. By August,x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared. He is now back at his regular business routine. Case No. 4, A woman had been troubled for a number of years with skin cancer. She developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by the acting specialist as advanced. Within 3 months after beginning asparagus therapy, the skin specialist said her skin looked fine with no more skin lesions. This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney disease, which had started in 1949. She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability payments for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition. She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus treatment. I was not surprised at this result as `The elements of materia medica', edited in 1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, stated that asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones. He even referred to experiments, in 1739, on the power of asparagus in dissolving stones. Note the dates! We would have other case histories but the medical establishment has interfered with our obtaining some of the records. I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy. For the treatment, asparagus should be cooked before using. Fresh or canned asparagus can be used. I have corresponded with the two leading caners of asparagus, Giant and Stokely, and I am satisfied that these brands contain no pesticides or preservatives. Place the cooked asparagus in a blender and liquefy to make a puree. Store in the refrigerator. Give the patient 4 full tablespoons twice daily, morning and evening. Patients usually show some improvement in 2-4 weeks. It can be diluted with water and used as a cold or hot drink. This suggested dosage is based on present experience, but certainly larger amounts can do no harm and may be needed in some cases. As a biochemist I am convinced of the old saying that `what cures can prevent.' Based on this theory, my wife and I have been using asparagus puree as a beverage with our meals. We take 2 tablespoons diluted in water to suit our taste with breakfast and with dinner. I take mine hot and my wife prefers hers cold. For years we have made it a practice to have blood surveys taken as part of our regular checkups. The last blood survey, taken by a medical doctor who specializes in the nutritional approach to health, showed substantial improvements in all categories over the last one, and we can attribute these improvements to nothing but the asparagus drink. As a biochemist, I have made an extensive study of all aspects of cancer, and all of the proposed cures. As a result, I am convinced that asparagus fits in better with the latest theories about cancer. Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are believed to be active in controlling cell growth. For that reason, I believe asparagus can be said to contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer. That accounts for its action on cancer and in acting as a general body tonic. In any event, regardless of theory, asparagus used as we suggest, is a harmless substance. The FDA cannot prevent you from using it and it may do you much good. It has been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body's most potent anticarcinogens and antioxidants. Just a side note... In case you are wondering why this has not been made public, there is no profit in curing cancer!