Re: Mammography

[Guest guest]

I don't do mammograms. I do thermography. I need to do another one. The

first one was pre-iodine.

> Has anyone had a mammography since being on iodine? And had it compared

> it to a mammography pre-iodine usage? I just did...looking at the

> preliminary pics...looks like my breasts went from nothing last year to

> alot of white patches today. This was via digital imaging which is

> extremely clear. Am waiting for dr. to get with me and of course

> holiday weekend starts tomorrow..so a long wait. What are your alls

> experience? I've been using 25mg. Iodoral daily since last July 2006.

>

> Michigan

>

>

>

> Send Message: iodine

>

> Iodine

[Guest guest]

How do you find someone that will order one and that can read one?

jin

> I don't do mammograms. I do thermography. I need to do another

one. The

> first one was pre-iodine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Has anyone had a mammography since being on iodine? And had it

compared

> > it to a mammography pre-iodine usage? I just did...looking at

the

> > preliminary pics...looks like my breasts went from nothing last

year to

> > alot of white patches today. This was via digital imaging which

is

> > extremely clear. Am waiting for dr. to get with me and of course

> > holiday weekend starts tomorrow..so a long wait. What are your

alls

> > experience? I've been using 25mg. Iodoral daily since last July

2006.

> >

> > Michigan

> >

> >

> >

> > Send Message: iodine

> >

> > Iodine

[Guest guest]

Does insurance pay for thermography's? I was guessing it's not a covered

test... but though I'd double check on that. Thanks

Amy

ladybugsandbees wrote:

I see this Dr. http://www.integrativehealthcarecenter.net/

and he sends it

off to www.thermascan.com to be read. If you live in the Detroit area

I am

told you can go right to Thermascan and they will do it for you there for

$115.

[Guest guest]

Nope - nadda. I pay $175 for the test.

Steph

Re: Re: Mammography

Does insurance pay for thermography's? I was guessing it's not a covered test... but though I'd double check on that. ThanksAmyladybugsandbees wrote:

I see this Dr. http://www.integrativehealthcarecenter.net/ and he sends it off to www.thermascan.com to be read. If you live in the Detroit area I am told you can go right to Thermascan and they will do it for you there for $115.

[Guest guest]

My xrays always showed a lot of white patches. I was told that it was

because I had dense breast tissue and lots of cysts.

I have been using Lugol's since October and I only have 3 cysts left

and they were the bigger ones. They are smaller now though. I

haven't had a mamogram done yet, although I am past due on that. I

wanted to wait until the cysts were completely gone.

Please keep us posted on what you find out!

Dianne

>

> > Has anyone had a mammography since being on iodine? And had it

> compared

> > it to a mammography pre-iodine usage? I just did...looking at the

> > preliminary pics...looks like my breasts went from nothing last

year

> to

> > alot of white patches today. This was via digital imaging which is

> > extremely clear.

>

>

> ,

>

> Thank you for posting this. I would very much like to know what's

going

> on so please post a follow up after you've talked with the doctor.

>

> Did you have fibrocystic breast disease? I'm wondering if it's

related

> to that.

>

> Lynn

>

[Guest guest]

Same here. I'm 37, but because my maternal g'mother had breast cancer,

I had been told that I needed to start at 35. I kept putting it off

since I am quite large. Now, reading that it could actually increase

my risk of cancer, I'm even more eager to put it off. *BG* I went for

my annual yesterday, and asked the dr (who is supposedly very open

minded about non-conventional methods), and she said that mammograms

increasing the risk of problems is totally untrue. But she also said

that I didn't need to worry about it until 40, so I didn't have to

fight it yet.

There's been a lot on the news lately about using MRI's for it as

well. They are still recommending mammograms, but said that MRI's are

more accurate, but aren't covered by insurance (and thus expensive). I

will have to look into the thermography.

Anyway, I'm very nervous about having a mammogram (from the pain and

also the risks), but also nervous NOT to have one..... But at least I

have a few years to work my way through that. :0)

Shelli wrote:

It's quite a coincidence that people

are talking about thermography today. I just started doing research

myself just hours before anyone posted about this. As I am nearing that

"age" (I'm 39), my doc said next year I should have my first mammo. I

didn't say anything. She went on to tell me how it's not so bad,

yadda,yadda,yadda. I just smiled and nodded. There is a

thermography center not too far from me. I'm trying to find out as much

as possible about it because I know I will have to defend it to friends

and doctors.

[Guest guest]

If someone does have breast cancer, the breast gets squeezed during a

mamogram, which can cause the cancer to metasticize (spread).

Likewise, a biopsy can also cause cancer to metasticize.

Alobar

On 4/6/07, Carol <kalo777@...> wrote:

> I had quit having mamograms (only had a few of them over the years)

> but found a LARGE lump in my right breast last year. Scared me as I

> wasn't looking for anything so I went and had it checked out and went

> for a mamogram (even though I was told it probably wasn't cancerous).

> Never did find out exactly what it was as I didn't go back to the

> doctor but I recieved a letter saying it was NOTHING to worry about.

> Maybe it was fibroids or something. I was told once I had fibrocystic

> breasts and had a recheck to make sure (over 10 years ago). I do

> drink coffee unfornately but not a lot (2-4 cups MAX and many days

> half or less of that). I did go off coffee twice before for 2 months

> each but it didn't do anything for me so I went back to drinking it.

> Comfort food. LOL (it doesn't do much for me anyways). Anyways, I

> can't find the lump anymore and that was before iodine which I just

> started. I figured it was the accumulative radiation from the

> mamogram and I probably won't have another one unless I suspect

> something. Never heard of thermography. Might look into it. Carol B

[Guest guest]

That makes sence even though I didn't know that. Breast cancer does

run in my family. Will keep that in mind next time (Thank you Lord I

didn't have it). Thanks, Carol B

> > I had quit having mamograms (only had a few of them over the

years)

> > but found a LARGE lump in my right breast last year. Scared me as

I

> > wasn't looking for anything so I went and had it checked out and

went

> > for a mamogram (even though I was told it probably wasn't

cancerous).

> > Never did find out exactly what it was as I didn't go back to the

> > doctor but I recieved a letter saying it was NOTHING to worry

about.

> > Maybe it was fibroids or something. I was told once I had

fibrocystic

> > breasts and had a recheck to make sure (over 10 years ago). I do

> > drink coffee unfornately but not a lot (2-4 cups MAX and many days

> > half or less of that). I did go off coffee twice before for 2

months

> > each but it didn't do anything for me so I went back to drinking

it.

> > Comfort food. LOL (it doesn't do much for me anyways). Anyways, I

> > can't find the lump anymore and that was before iodine which I

just

> > started. I figured it was the accumulative radiation from the

> > mamogram and I probably won't have another one unless I suspect

> > something. Never heard of thermography. Might look into it. Carol

B

>

[Guest guest]

Excuse me whats a T**s? This response to my concern is ridiculous.

I was ASKING IF anyone had a comparitive from one to another. I dont

usually get mammograms, but did last year after 12 yrs. of not. I'd

never heard of thermography as refernced by . Breast cancer

IS a big deal...ask the woman who died from it. Yes, it is alot of

one's pH balance..but...to minimize it as you have is ridiculous.

Many people have done exactly as you have suggested...changed their

diet, and alkalized their body. They still succumbed to cancer.

Your off the cuff remarks were neither helpful nor useful. I was

looking for experiences.

Sorry...just get tired of people regurgitating things " they've read

somewhere " and can't really offer anything of purpose.

Michigan

>

> Keep your T**s out of X-ray machines! X-rays cause cancer!

>

> There is no safe level of ionizing radiation: NONE! The exposures

are

> accumulative at a rate of about 2% per exposure. Do the math.

Breast

> cancer is not a big deal. Its the treatment thats dangerous. If you

> clear out your digestive system and put in the necessary minerals

your

> internal pH will revert to normal and tumors will disolve ane be re-

> absrobed back into the body. Cancer is a natural phenomonon and

should

> not be feared. Its the men wearing masks that you should be afraid

of.

>

> said:

> Has anyone had a mammography since being on iodine? And had it

compared

> it to a mammography pre-iodine usage? I just did...looking at the

> preliminary pics...looks like my breasts went from nothing last

year to

> alot of white patches today. This was via digital imaging which is

> extremely clear. Am waiting for dr. to get with me and of course

> holiday weekend starts tomorrow..so a long wait. What are your alls

> experience? I've been using 25mg. Iodoral daily since last July

2006.

>

[Guest guest]

, was your previous mammo also digital?

I checked with the BreastCancerChoices moderator since I figured they had a lot of experience with iodine and breast issues, but they have not come across this. However, she pointed out that not many of the women get mammograms any more.

Zoe

Has anyone had a mammography since being on iodine? And had it compared it to a mammography pre-iodine usage? I just did...looking at the preliminary pics...looks like my breasts went from nothing last year to alot of white patches today. This was via digital imaging which is extremely clear. Am waiting for dr. to get with me and of course holiday weekend starts tomorrow..so a long wait. What are your alls experience? I've been using 25mg. Iodoral daily since last July 2006. Michigan

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone,

I am just now reading through these responses. I do not nor ever had

any issues with my breasts such as fibrocystic issues. My mother

died of breast cancer and thus my decision along with my hypothyroid

to begin Iodoral last July. My mammogram last April was very very

clear,...just a couple of teeny tiny pin prick size calcium deposits

in both breasts, which didnt mean anything. While the tech was doing

this years mammogram...which I did just for the comparison because I

was very curious if iodine changed the results...I watched the screen

and saw large patches of the white areas. I only know that they

werent there last year. My gut is telling me it is NOT cancer..but

maybe indeed denser tissue. I will find out probably Monday or

Tuesday as I will call and bug my doc who I helped understand the

great use of Armour.

I will keep you posted. And if it is cancer be asking for

educated/wholistic, natural suggestions.

Michigan

>

> Very interesting, . Do you have any idea what " white patches "

indicate? Zoe

> Mammography

>

>

> Has anyone had a mammography since being on iodine? And had it

compared

> it to a mammography pre-iodine usage? I just did...looking at

the

> preliminary pics...looks like my breasts went from nothing last

year to

> alot of white patches today. This was via digital imaging which

is

> extremely clear. Am waiting for dr. to get with me and of course

> holiday weekend starts tomorrow..so a long wait. What are your

alls

> experience? I've been using 25mg. Iodoral daily since last July

2006.

>

> Michigan

>

[Guest guest]

That's a good point. So glad your mom is doing ok. Carol B

> >> I had quit having mamograms (only had a few of them over the

years)

> >> but found a LARGE lump in my right breast last year. Scared me

as I

> >> wasn't looking for anything so I went and had it checked out and

went

> >> for a mamogram (even though I was told it probably wasn't

cancerous).

> >> Never did find out exactly what it was as I didn't go back to the

> >> doctor but I recieved a letter saying it was NOTHING to worry

about.

> >> Maybe it was fibroids or something. I was told once I had

fibrocystic

> >> breasts and had a recheck to make sure (over 10 years ago). I do

> >> drink coffee unfornately but not a lot (2-4 cups MAX and many

days

> >> half or less of that). I did go off coffee twice before for 2

months

> >> each but it didn't do anything for me so I went back to drinking

it.

> >> Comfort food. LOL (it doesn't do much for me anyways). Anyways, I

> >> can't find the lump anymore and that was before iodine which I

just

> >> started. I figured it was the accumulative radiation from the

> >> mamogram and I probably won't have another one unless I suspect

> >> something. Never heard of thermography. Might look into it.

Carol B

>

>

> > Send Message: iodine

>

> > Iodine

[Guest guest]

Holy smokes. I'm glad your mom is allright. I have a relative who never

had a mammogram & found her breast cancer by accident.,... some kind

of sore. They did the lumpectomy & radiation, but did not require chemo.

I assume this means it was a low grade cancer type. FWIW, she is allergic

to seafood & never takes vitamins. She is 75.

For a flip story... what about who recommends mammograms?

I haven't followed closely, but I assume the mammogram found her cancer.

I know genes has a lot to do with it... I'll be the one who's damned if

I do, and if I don't.

Amy

zoe W wrote:

My mom underwent emergency mastectomy just

2 weeks after having had her last mammogram which said she was fine !!!!!

Had her nipple not become infected they never would have found it.

She was religious about having her mammogram every single year. I talked

to her doctor after the surgery and he stated that this tumor had been growing

in her for over 30 years !!!!! ( Mom is still alive and Cancer free some

35 years later )

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), " ukti desai "

<ukti_desai@...> said:

> i want some details regarding MAMMOGRAPHY.

What kind of details are you looking for? You will get a lot of

differing opinions on it, that's for sure.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

that they may cuase as much breat cancer as they find....?

My understanding is thermography is better but that too may have its false

positives etc.....

On 5/4/08, Arlyn Grant <arlynsg@...> wrote:

>

>

> On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), " ukti desai "

> <ukti_desai@... <ukti_desai%40>> said:

> > i want some details regarding MAMMOGRAPHY.

>

> What kind of details are you looking for? You will get a lot of

> differing opinions on it, that's for sure.

>

> ar

> --

> Arlyn Grant

> arlynsg@... <arlynsg%40123mail.org>

>

>

>

--

Don't get Greenwashed!

www.sweetlifeorganics.com

Certified USDA Food Grade Organic

Personal Care, Cosmetics, & Wellness

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 02:24:23 -0400, " Meredith W. " <meredithbw@...>

said:

> that they may cuase as much breat cancer as they find....?

>

> My understanding is thermography is better but that too may have its

> false

> positives etc.....

I think it would be nearly impossible to assertain that someone's breast

cancer was caused by mammograms. I know they didn't cause mine. And

they didn't cause breast cancer in all the young women in an online

group I frequent as we were all too young for them. Radiation does

cause cancer. But will mammograms specifically give you breast cancer?

Each one of us needs to make up our own minds on that. And how much

radiation do we need to be exposed to before cancer starts specifically

from it?

And you are correct about thermography. At least, that is what my

reading says. This is why you are supposed to do them in conjuction

with mammograms. Anything suspect in a thermogram will need to be

followed up on. I do wish there was one in my city so I could check it

out.

Ultrasounds and MRIs are other options that do not use radiation.

However, sometimes ultrasounds don't see what a mammo sees. And vice

versa. And MRIs also give too many false positives. Also, some people

have trouble with the dye injected into the body for the contrast. I

insisted on an MRI and had a terrible time with getting an IV to have

the dye injected as I have small veins. That experience turned me off

from having another one.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

In cases of DCIS breast cancer it is not necessarily the radiation

that triggers the cancer but more likely the mechanical irritation

due to the compression of the breast tissues. Normally this cancer

remains dormant throughout a life-time but can be brought into play

as a result of mechanical trauma. X-rays do cause cancer, there is no

doubt. So does poor drainage due to the wearing of bras. There are

many causes. There is a mouse sarcoma that has been identified in

some breast tissue and the only way I can see it getting into the

body is via vaccination or very wierd eating habits. They throw road

kill into those vats to make vaccines. Also the Salk and Sabin

vaccines both contained SV-40 monkey virus that has been linked to

osteosarcoma bone cancer.

Don't even get me started on vaccines...Grrrr

[Guest guest]

i thought there was a study that showed this?

arlynsg wrote:

" Meredith W. said:

that they may cuase as much breat cancer as they find....?

My understanding is thermography is better but that too may have its

false

positives etc.....

I think it would be nearly impossible to assertain that someone's breast

cancer was caused by mammograms.

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 07:28:25 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> There is a lot of info on the internet about this. here is one good

> article:

>

> http://www.rense.com/general48/mam.htm

>

> Weed also wrote a book on the topic which is referenced in the

> above article.

Interesting article.

I would love to know how to get that oncogene test to see if I'm one of

the ones that should not have any radiation.

But again, the majority women have their yearly mammos and never get

breast cancer.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

I agree about vaccines. They scare the heck out of me.

There are different forms of DCIS. Some aggressive. Some not

aggressive. Certain types of DCIS will never become invasive.

My DCIS was aggressive. Another year and I probably would have had

invasive cancer. Again, many young women who have never had a mammogram

end up with invasive cancer that started from DCIS. I do believe that

the compression of breast tissue during a mammogram can be a problem.

But I'm not sure how much.

I still think you are over simplifying things and giving the wrong

information.

ar

On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:01:09 -0000, " comdyne2002 " <comdyne@...>

said:

> In cases of DCIS breast cancer it is not necessarily the radiation

> that triggers the cancer but more likely the mechanical irritation

> due to the compression of the breast tissues. Normally this cancer

> remains dormant throughout a life-time but can be brought into play

> as a result of mechanical trauma. X-rays do cause cancer, there is no

> doubt. So does poor drainage due to the wearing of bras. There are

> many causes. There is a mouse sarcoma that has been identified in

> some breast tissue and the only way I can see it getting into the

> body is via vaccination or very wierd eating habits. They throw road

> kill into those vats to make vaccines. Also the Salk and Sabin

> vaccines both contained SV-40 monkey virus that has been linked to

> osteosarcoma bone cancer.

>

> Don't even get me started on vaccines...Grrrr

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 04:02:09 -0400, " Meredith W. " <meredithbw@...>

said:

> i thought there was a study that showed this?

>

A study still cannot show if mammograms started the cancer. There are

far too many factors that must be perfectly aligned before cancer can

grow.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

Would love to see some statistics about this broad statement.

Thanks.

Loretta

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

But again, the majority women have their yearly mammos and never get

breast cancer.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/4/08 6:20:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

comdyne@... writes:

> Dr. Mathias Rath

> has a panented formulation which he claims to be highly effective in

> blocking the MMP enzymes that spread the cancers throughout the body

What is this formula and what are the enzymes? People seem to talk around

it.

**************

Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family

favorites at AOL Food.

(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, yearly mammograms are pointless. Tumors are not the beginning of

cancer, they are a local manifestation of a systemic disease. By the

time a tumor is large enough to be found on an X-ray, cancer has been

in play for seven to eight years. Surgery does not address the cause

and it often makes the cancer return with a vengeance. Dr. Bell

stopped operating for cancer all together. It is best to leave tumors

alone because in the beginning there is usually only one tumor due to

its need for a specific sugar that is in short supply. Once the tumor

is extirpated, metastasis often sets in which otherwise may have been

contained within the tumor.

Dr. Lorraine Day speaks of de-bulking large tumors but not cutting

out the margins. In this way, the load upon digestive enzymes is

reduced and the tumor becomes easier to dissolve. Leaving behind a

portion of the tumor is a way to determine one's progress in

shrinking it via nutritional means. She used the Gerson protocol to

get rid of her breast cancer although she didn't mention it

specifically in her videos.

[Guest guest]

How should women screen for breast cancer?

1. Mammography - surely will cause all women to die according to the

die-hards. Though digital mammograms use less radiation. Not good for

dense breast tissue.

2. Thermography - no one knows about it and it isn't available in the

majority of cities. To be used in conjuction with other screening

tools.

3. Ultrasound - May not pick up microcalcifications. Thus not picking

up many early cancers. To be used in conjuction with other screening

tools.

4. MRIs - Not covered by most insurances for screening. Too many false

positives so many doctors will not use them. To be used in conjuction

with other screening tools.

5. Self-breast exams - Many women never have lumps until the cancer is

very far advanced.

I feel that all women need to make the best choices they can for

themselves. No one should be made to feel poorly if they have chosen

mammography or not. There are, unfortunately, no clear answers.

Even living a cancer-free lifestyle will not assure anyone of remaining

cancer free.

So, do your best. Make the best choices you can.

ar

--

Arlyn Grant

arlynsg@...