RE: mammograms reply for Ann

[Guest guest]

Ann, I don't have time to give you a full reply now and search for the links as

I am about to go away for the weekend and must get things ready, but when I get

back I will explain more about how all radiation we are exposed to, flying on

air planes, (particularly during solar flares) x rays/mammograms.C-scans etc are

cumulative, and you want to keep them to a minimum.

When they are needed, they are needed, you've got a broken leg, no choice there,

but very often x rays are done just to get reimbursed by insurance for

chiropractic treatment for example (our case and that's how we delved into this

whole radiation thing after suffering the consequences of ONE freaking x-ray,

that didn't really need to be done anyway and we saw the devastating effects

only because we were undergoing infertility treatment at the time, so it was

pure chance. Took my husband over 8 months to get his sperm count back to

normal and that's when I learned what one x ray or one mammogram can do, yes

done in a medical office with lead shield, all protection was there, but our

body registers things differently and cells are affected in ways that we don't

usually get to find out about unless we are researching the exact effects of

radiation, so scientists know, but medical doctors are told it's safe and they

believe it and so they just take the x rays because that's

the recommended guideline. But the reality can be very different for some

people and again, most people don't really know their options and are

unknowingly herded by the x-ray industry into believing x-ray based tests are

perfectly safe and insurance covers them for the most part, so have as many as

you want, what's the problem?)

Anyway, exposing a high risk population to yearly mammograms is not the way to

prevent breast cancer, quite the opposite. The risks of the mammograms

themselves triggering something are too high to out weigh the benefits, plus a

mammogram catches tumorous growths in progress for at least a few years which

means it's really already too late in many ways and invasive/destructive

surgical procedures and radiation or chemo therapy are the only options left.

Thermography uses our body heat to identify " hot spots " precancerous areas and

after an initial base line all changes are interpreted by the thermography

expert (and yes as with anything it MUST be an expert) Thermogams catch cancer

predisposed areas and preventive (yes biomedical/life style) treatments can be

applied before the cancer actually develops allowing and encouraging the body to

heal and perhaps keep in check those areas.

If the cancer is more established already, a mammogram is then still needed to

identify the exact location and size and then a biopsy is performed as it is the

only true diagnostic tool there is for cancer. After that cancer treatments of

what ever orientation can be applied, but the truly beautiful thing about

thermograms is that you can potentially avoid the cancers altogether or at least

slow them down by starting to do all those things we all know we should be doing

but keep putting off until something really gives us the wake up call.

Yes biomedical treatments are part of this too--diet/nutrition exercise,

quitting smoking, taking the time to smell the flowers, supplements for whatever

deficiencies, getting read of intestinal parasites so many of us unknowingly

harbor (and this is so real and so taxing on our bodies), optimizing the immune

system and just doing everything possible to boost your own body's response to

cancer and other illnesses. The immune system is amazing if you work with it

and help your body heal when the damage is minimal.

Mammograms are way too late and way too dangerous to be used as a regular

screening tool.

I better go. I'll send you my links when I get back and the only downside to

thermograms is that they are still relatively new, the industry is invested in

mammography, and so there aren't too many centers around, but most big cities

have them now and things are picking up, slowly, but surely.

BTW, I hope you're just curious about this and there's no need. I'll be in

touch.

_Elena

Ann and Lester <jmlester04@...> wrote: Elena, where did you get

your facts that each mammogram increases the risk

of developing breast cancer?

-----Original Message-----

Mammograms for example are praised for saving lives, and yes, I'm sure they

can and have done that in many cases, but less known is the fact that each

mammogram increases the risk of developing cancer considerably, especially

in the already high risk populations and they may not be the best way to

screen for cancer since we now have safer more sensitive screening tools

available that can signal a precancerous growth up to 8 years sooner than a

mammogram. But it isn't likely your doctor will tell you about thermography

as an option yet because this too has become a " turf " battle. Thermograms

are safer and better early detection tool because they can identify

precancerous growths, whereas mammograms only identify the cancer that is

already in progress usually for at least 2 to 3 years or more so that's not

too early, but the health industry is heavily invested in mammography,

millions of dollars worth, so it's not going to happen soon unfortunately,

So many of us are still

going to get those yearly mammogram recommendations and well, we each have

to decide what the costs and benefits are. The question is, do we really

know our options at this point?

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Elena,

I recently was diagnosed with Stage 3, Grade 3 Triple Negative Breast

Cancer with 7 positive lymph nodes and am thankful to my doctors at

Columbia Presbyterian. I encountered 4 rounds of AC chemotherapy,

TRAM FLAP surgery with a reduction in my left breast, and now 4 rounds

of Taxol chemotherapy. I will receive 25 days worth of radiation

after August. The cancer was in my right breast and the PET Scan

showed it did not spread outside of that area.

I will ask my docs what their opinions of breast thermography vs.

mammograms are, but I do recall a conversation back in February 2008

with my medical oncologist who stated the MRI will probably replace

the mammogram, as well as a blood test that has been in the

development stage for some years (2005).

I do see a nutritionist in Denville, Nj who explained to me that a

doctors hypocratic oath would be damaged by his peers if the doc was

to recommend changing ones nutritional intake and build up their

immune system to take the harsh treatment plan that is in store for so

many cancer patients. I do agree the drug companies are pushing the

doctors because they have the money, but some docs will talk to you on

the side and will agree diet, exercise and positive attitudes will

bring you out of this unlucky hand dealt to you.

All the best,

Joanne Mulholland

>