Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Are you implying that thermography is more accurate then mammography? If so, I sure would like to see your statistics! Stan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 [stan asked for statistics on thermography] I sent some information on that but if that wasn't enough you can do a search on google for the additional information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Stan, I'd also like to hear the statistics for accuracy of mammograms, if you have them. Not trying to be confrontational - just want to hear both sides. My " impression " of mammograms is that they are (1) invasive, in the sense that the ionizing radiation is carcinogenic (especially after numerous exposures over the years), (2) damaging, due to the mashing of the woman's breasts when internal damage might cause the cancer to spread, (3) of questionable accuracy, though I don't know the statistics...which is why I'm asking,4) far from " early " detection--even if they ARE detected, they must be large enough to be seen. The AMAS blood test sounds like a much better route to take - it is very accurate and, if negative, gives you a clean bill of being cancer-free throughout your entire body (ovarian cancer, lung cancer, uterine cancer, and so on). If it comes out positive, then you need to start looking and employing other means to pinpoint the problem. This AMAS blood test is inexpensive, non-invasive, and offers an earlier warning. It's not more widely known and used due to financial concerns, not because of it's validity and usefulness (at least that's MY spin on it). Bob B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Hi Bob: I did once look at the stats of mammography long time ago. The over-all accuracy rate then was 88.4% when viewed by a trained mammographer. With proper equipment, radiation should not be an important factor. If mammos are done at the prescribed rate over her life time, the probability of her dying from the radiation is less than being killed in a 300 mile air-flight. Experienced technicians when compressing the breast should not produce internal damage. i have never seen the over-all accuracy rate with thermograms. Why? Stan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Bob: The over-all accuracy rate should be closer to 84%. Stan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 " C " said she'd been told by her oncologist that these blood tests are not completely accurate. WHAT blood tests? (Since most of the original text is missing...again...I can only guess; I don't have time to go back through e-mails to find the original.) If you're referring to the AMAS blood test, then your oncologist is correct...it is not " completely " 100% accurate. However, you may consider asking what IS completely accurate. Ask what test exists for giving you warning about ovarian cancer...or uterine cancer. There aren't any. So it is better to get a heads up (in the 90+% accuracy range) of the presence of cancer, or just let it go until it's large enough to be visible and therefore " seen " by a mammogram, CAT Scan, MRI...? Unfortunately, oncologists seem to have largely ignored the AMAS blood test, but they did the same thing with the PAP Smear until, in 1947, it appeared in a women's magazine and women began demanding it. Bob B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 > For many years, mammography has been the standard test to evaluate breast > tissue for cancer. Although research has described that it may not be very > accurate in women with dense breasts, it is still the first test that doctors > recommend. Some studies say that it may miss abnormalities in dense breast > tissue up to 40% of the time. It is not recommended, as well, for women under 40, > even with family history of breast cancer. > This should really be unacceptable. If a test is not extremely accurate, it > should not be relied upon. > > Fortunately, doctors, researchers and inventors have been trying to create > better mechanisms and machines that are more accurate and safer. Those that > are not painful, and do not expose the body to radiation. > For many years infrared technology has been used in the non medical realm. > Whether in science or the military fields it has become a very accurate and > reliable tool. > The devices have also been fine tuned and have been made applicable to > medical testing. > > The latest and most accurate infrared thermography devices are being used > extensively and very sucessfully in breast tissue evaluation and early cancer > detection. > > As cancer cells are created and start to proliferate, they are growing > faster than other normal cells. They need more blood flow and vessel support to > exist. This creates an increase in heat in the breast tissue exactly where the > abnormal cells exist. With the latest of the thermography techniques, it can > detect increases in temperature in the breast tissue and point towards an > abnormality far before the mammography can. > Mammography can pick up calcification in breast tissue, but this happens > way down the road. Mammography sends x rays into tissue, but when dense tissue > exists, the x rays bounce off of thick cell structure, so cancer can " hide " > behind dense tissue. > See the following articles for reference. > > Dr Moshe Deckel is the only tri state certified thermographer. > He is a board certified gynecologist, in practice for 27 years. > He is performing thermography in my East Meadow office on Mondays. > > (516) 794 0404. > > Dr. Calapai > > The evolving role of the dynamic thermal analysis in the early detection of > breast cancer > > It is now recognised that the breast exhibits a circadian rhythm which > reflects its physiology. There is increasing evidence that rhythms associated with > malignant cells proliferation are largely non-circadian and that a circadian > to ultradian shift may be a general correlation to neoplasia. > Cancer development appears to generate its own thermal signatures and the > complexity of these signatures may be a reflection of its degree of > development. > The limitations of mammography as a screening modality especially in young > women with dense breasts necessitated the development of novel and more > effective screening strategies with a high sensitivity and specificity. Dynamic > thermal analysis of the breast is a safe, non invasive approach that seems to be > sensitive for the early detection of breast cancer. > This article focuses on dynamic thermal analysis as an evolving method in > breast cancer detection in pre-menopausal women with dense breast tissue. > Prospective multi-centre trials are required to validate this promising modality > in screening. > The issue of false positives require further investigation using molecular > genetic markers of malignancy and novel techniques such as mammary ductoscopy. > > > > Source > > > Analysis of breast diseases examination with thermal texture mapping, > mammography and ultrasound > This paper will compare diagnostic values of thermal texture mapping (TTM), > mammography and ultrasound in relating breast disease. Using pathological > finding as gold standard, the results were compared with that of TTM, > mammography and ultrasound. > > There being 25 cases of malignant and 13 cases of benign, the correlation > rate of TTM with pathological finding (100%, 96%) respectively, were superior > to the correlation rate of mammography , ultrasound with pathological finding > (88.9%, 63.6%, 90.5%, 63.6%). TTM, on the differential diagnosis of breast > disease, were superior to mammography and ultrasound. > Source > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 " Thermography is primarily used to detect breast cancer often 10 years or more prior to the formation of a tumor. Steps can be taken so as to prevent its eventual occurrence which is why this test is so desirable... " I doubt that there is any science behind this statement. You can just as easily say that your Ouija board can predict cancer 20 years in advance. You can catch every case and have no false negatives. Your Ouija board predicts positive every time. Of those who tested positive and don't get cancer it is because you may have said an intercessionary prayer for them offering their soul to Satan. I think the logic is unassailable. List members could do a far better job providing documentation for unusual claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.