Re: Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs

[Guest guest]

I had thermograms done. Showed heat at the base of both sides. Nothing on

clinical exam says Dr. Not about to have any more mammograms. There has

been calcification, which was reported on by a private hospital's mammo

service, but when I went to the mass mammo van, pink van in W Australia,

they scurried around and took lots of extra shots, but the report just said

no cancer detected. Apparently they don't report on anything except cancer.

So you have no idea how things are progressing or what else might be

happening in there. I was pretty disgusted - you don't get any rebate from

the health insurance if you have a mammography done in some other

mammography unit when you could have gone to the mobile unit. I don't see

the point of going somewhere where you don't get a full report - and all on

public money, too. As I understand things, it could be five or six years

before a mammogram could detect anything anyway, whereas a thermogram tells

you something is, well, hot. At least, that is what I read when doing

research, but this is absolutely contradicted by the mammogram people at

Royal Perth Hospital

http://www.breastscreen.health.wa.gov.au/content/Thermography/Thermography.asp;

http://www.breastscreen.health.wa.gov.au/content/Thermography/docs/BreastScreen%\

20WA%20Thermography%20Article%20for%20Medical%20Forum%202006.pdf

On

http://www.breastscreen.health.wa.gov.au/content/Thermography/docs/NZ%20Thermogr\

aphy%20Position%20Statement%202005.pdf

it stated that thermography was dropped because high false positives; what I

wonder is whether the positives were simply giving results rather earlier

than the other methods could detect. It's very sad that such adamant anti

thermograph reports by our health authorities fail to convince for a variety

of reasons.

An MRI would cost six hundred dollars, no refunds available.

I didn't get the kind of thermograph with the pretty colours, just a chart

with crosses marked where the skin temperature was higher. I seem to recall

it was somehow connected with Dr Voll's work in Europe. No rays go into the

body; it's just done on skin temperature after an initial measurement at

normal temperature and a second measurement after a period in a cool room.

http://www.lifetronics.com.au/CRT/Thermography.htm is where I went. If you

google the words you might be able to find somewhere near you. I don't have

the name of the kind where you get a coloured printout. Maybe they are the

ones done with infrared rays.

If it's going to be some years before orthodox methods can find anything

anyway, I'd be better employed for the next few years doing alternative

stuff so there's nothing for them to find , hopefully.

These sites have other information and might help locate someone near you if

you google the specific words.

http://www.kinergetics.com.au/Page.asp?Name=Kinesiology+Research

http://www.drrosethomas.com/thermography.html

Rowena

[Guest guest]

> Re: [ ] Re: mammography and biopsies Thermographs

>

> I had thermograms done. Showed heat at the base of both sides. Nothing

> on

> clinical exam says Dr. Not about to have any more mammograms. There has

> been calcification, which was reported on by a private hospital's mammo

> service, but when I went to the mass mammo van, pink van in W Australia,

> they scurried around and took lots of extra shots, but the report just

> said

> no cancer detected. Apparently they don't report on anything except

> cancer.

> So you have no idea how things are progressing or what else might be

> happening in there. I was pretty disgusted - you don't get any rebate

> from

> the health insurance if you have a mammography done in some other

> mammography unit when you could have gone to the mobile unit. I don't see

> the point of going somewhere where you don't get a full report - and all

> on

> public money, too. As I understand things, it could be five or six years

> before a mammogram could detect anything anyway, whereas a thermogram

> tells

> you something is, well, hot. At least, that is what I read when doing

> research, but this is absolutely contradicted by the mammogram people at

> Royal Perth Hospital

> http://www.breastscreen.health.wa.gov.au/content/Thermography/Thermography

> .asp;

> http://www.breastscreen.health.wa.gov.au/content/Thermography/docs/BreastS

> creen%20WA%20Thermography%20Article%20for%20Medical%20Forum%202006.pdf

>

> On

> http://www.breastscreen.health.wa.gov.au/content/Thermography/docs/NZ%20Th

> ermography%20Position%20Statement%202005.pdf

> it stated that thermography was dropped because high false positives; what

> I

> wonder is whether the positives were simply giving results rather earlier

> than the other methods could detect. It's very sad that such adamant

> anti

> thermograph reports by our health authorities fail to convince for a

> variety

> of reasons.

It is nevertheless true. Only mammography is able to detect tiny 2-3 mm

cancers deeply within the breast. This should be quite obvious from the

physics. Moreover, stereotactic mammography enables the biopsy of such

tiny cancers without the need for an open operation.

I favour the free public clinics for screening as the radiologists are

specialising in the field. They will miss fewer cancers and not be too

inclined to recommend biopsy or follow-up films " just to be safe " .

A more modern computer-assisted version of thermography (which may also use

breast compression) is being tried in various centres, but even that was not

proving reliable in picking up smaller breast cancers when I last looked at

the published data. It also suffers from a high false positive rate -- even

a large vein can send an infrared signal. It is probably better than

standard thermography, and it might eventually have a place in the screening

of women too young to have mammography, but I doubt if thermography of any

quality and expertise in interpreting it is available outside a few centres.

I repeat that despite the widest possible use of mammography and needle

biopsies, and an ever increasing incidence of breast cancer (even in the

younger women who never had a mammogram) death rates from breast cancer are

distinctly decreasing.

Moran

[Guest guest]

vgammill wrote:

As a means of diagnosing cancer it is terrible. A false positive or a false

negative is far worse than being completely in the dark.

>

Hi ,

The nurse who does my thermograms says that it reads the heat patterns in the

breast which would show the presence of cancer cells, years before they

formed an actual tumor. This makes sense to me. I have used it as a

preventative

measure.

A lot of the literature on-line praises this methods as so much better than

mamograms.

Can you clarify the wide difference in opinion?

Thank you.

[Guest guest]

pmoran wrote:

wonder is whether the positives were simply giving results rather earlier than

the other methods could detect. It's very sad that such adamant anti thermograph

reports by our health authorities fail to convince for a variety of reasons.

>

I would pay close attention to anything that was indicated by a

thermogram..it's worth looking at over time.

If there is any question, do ulta sound and MRI.

[Guest guest]

I have used CRT thermography in my office for many years. It is a

valuable tool if you recognize its limitations. Many women call me

for thermograms because they don't want an x-ray mammogram. I

usually have to spend fifteen minutes trying to explain that they are

very different tools. As a means of diagnosing cancer it is

terrible. A false positive or a false negative is far worse than

being completely in the dark.

I have found its best use is in monitoring an inflammatory process

and sometimes it is very useful in monitoring autonomic dysfunction

along a dermatome -- a phenomenon often noted in association with an

eventual finding of a primary tumor, perhaps years later. What it

means is that serious attention to the area is warranted. To go any

further with the assessment will elicit false patterns and

overconfidence that could result in very regrettable decisions.

[Guest guest]

Use all the tools you need to make a good diagnosis/assessment. Try

to avoid tools that are ionizing or invasive. The MRI is

non-ionizing. The CRT thermogram will give you more useful

information about the " terrain " while the MRI will give more useful

information about the lesion, especially location and size.

At 03:47 PM 10/22/2006, you wrote:

>-: So if I am understanding and reading correctly you're not in

>favor of this for looking at a cancer that already exists but would be

>more in favor of a MRI? Just wanted to get some clarification. Frann

>

>

>

>-- In , VGammill <vgammill@...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > I have used CRT thermography in my office for many years. It is a

> > valuable tool if you recognize its limitations.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

A number of things can cause the breast to show heat, e.g,

atypical/asymetrical vasculature or infection. Cancers that are slow

growing may generate very little heat. Contrary to common belief,

the thermogram is not a useful tool for detecting heat from

tumors. It is a useful tool to track atonia in the autonomic nervous system.

At 04:23 PM 10/22/2006, you wrote:

>vgammill wrote:

>As a means of diagnosing cancer it is terrible. A false positive or

>a false negative is far worse than being completely in the dark.

> >

>

>Hi ,

>

>The nurse who does my thermograms says that it reads the heat patterns in the

>breast which would show the presence of cancer cells, years before they

>formed an actual tumor. This makes sense to me. I have used it as

>a preventative

>measure.

>

>A lot of the literature on-line praises this methods as so much better than

>mamograms.

>

>Can you clarify the wide difference in opinion?

>

>Thank you.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Could i take Iodoral aswell as Catron???

Many Thxs

Ann-Marie

[Guest guest]

I second on this. I had a friend that had a whole body thermogram to

supposedly have a baseline and according the the interpreter of this test, my

friend was fine. Well, it turns out she has 4th stage liver cancer with colon

and lung metastasis. So, a thermogram is a radiation-free option but not a

definitive tool for locating tumors......I have since in the last 2 months had

other patients with similar stories.

Johanne

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

From: VGammill<mailto:vgammill@...>

I have used CRT thermography in my office for many years. It is a

valuable tool if you recognize its limitations. As a means of diagnosing

cancer it is terrible. A false positive or a false negative is far worse than

being completely in the dark.

I have found its best use is in monitoring an inflammatory process

and sometimes it is very useful in monitoring autonomic dysfunction along a

dermatome -- a phenomenon often noted in association with an eventual finding of

a primary tumor, perhaps years later. What it means is that serious attention to

the area is warranted.