Originally published March 8 2011
Unreliable detection and twice the radiation - FDA approves new mammogram technology
by Paula Rothstein
(NaturalNews) The cancer industry is in the process of rolling out its latest tool of detection which is meant to improve current mammogram technology by offering three dimensional (3-D) imaging of breasts. Now with FDA approval, the first x-ray device of its kind meant to be used for cancer screening purposes has been developed. It appears the system costs more and for your money you get twice the radiation.
The two studies used by the FDA to approve this new screening method relied on the existing technology as applied in conjunction with 3-D technology. No study was performed using only 3-D technology; therefore, its distinct merits have yet to be measured. Using both 2-D and 3-D imaging, radiologists were able to obtain a 7 percent improvement in discerning cancerous tumors from non-cancerous tumors. It is important to note that improvement was not based on finding tumors but rather in the reduction of false positives. The FDA went on to admit the additional imaging doubled the radiation dose for the patient but that is not a matter of concern. Apparently, women should ignore the fact that mammograms expose the body to 1,000 times the radiation than that of a chest x-ray.
A Woman's Best Hope for Detection of Breast Cancer Does Not Need to Involve Radiation
We are frequently reminded that annual mammograms remain a woman's best option for detecting breast cancer. But is this really the case? Is exposing the body to radiation a logical approach to cancer detection?
As women are herded by the mainstream medical establishment toward their annual mammogram, the obvious and safe alternative is never mentioned. Digital Infrared Imaging (DII), also known as thermography, offers a safe and effective method of cancer screening, yet it is virtually ignored. While mammograms search for lumps, DII measures heat. Tumors are always seeking nutrients to feed and thus by their very nature increase circulation of blood and metabolic activity. DII screening measures this heat and the technician rates the level of heat on a scale of 1 to 5. Studies have shown DII to be highly effective at detecting tumors.
The Effectiveness of Thermograms Stand the Test When Compared to Mammograms
Mammograms offer 80 percent sensitivity to cancers with 20 percent of cancers missed. Mammograms are less effective in women under the age of 50, missing as many as 40 percent of cancers. Hormone use decreases sensitivity making it less useful as does large, dense and fibrocystic breasts. Also, there are areas of the breast which offer no visualization such as the medial upper triangle.
DII offers 90 percent sensitivity to cancers, missing only 10 percent of cancers. The same effectiveness applies for all age groups; it is not affected by hormone use and can visualize all areas of the breast with the same level of accuracy.
In the case of mammograms, the most insidious forms of cancer are sometimes unrecognizable while it frequently picks up benign tumors whether using 2-D or 3-D imaging. Remember, 3-D technology merely offers up less false positives with no noted improvement in detection. The opposite is true with regards to thermograms. The less aggressive lesions are sometimes missed because they fail to generate enough blood vessel activity to show up on the scan.
The contrast between these two technologies is quite dramatic. One form radiates the breast while the other safely scans. Three times zero equals zero which is quite possibly what we have here with mammograms offering 3-D imaging. If you must look for lumps, your best option remains Digital Infrared Imaging.
About the authorPaula Rothstein is a freelance writer and certified holistic health coach active in the area of natural health and health freedom advocacy. As a graduate of the Institute for Integrative Nutrition, she has gained insight into the political nature of food, the failings of a drug-dependent healthcare system, and the uniqueness of individual health. For more information, please visit: http://www.medicinefreeliving.com.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml