http://www.care2.com/greenliving/mammography-versus-thermography.html
Mammography vs. Thermography
Adapted from Healthy Medicine, by Robert J. Zieve, M.D. (Bell Pond Books, 2005).
Many women today are concerned about the effects of accumulated radiation from routine mammograms. That concern is addressed by instead using thermography, which involves no radiation, and ultrasound when necessary.
A major asset of thermography is in the area of early detection and confirmation of breast cancers. In a German study, 54 percent of breast cancer patients were correctly diagnosed by history and physical examination. The number rose to 76 percent when mammography was added. However, when computerized regulation thermography was used, the accuracy of diagnosis rose to 92 percent.
With thermography, we do not have to rely on mammographies. And with the growing controversy on the radiation exposure from repeated mammographies, as well as the not insignificant percentage of false-negative results, thermographic screening becomes increasingly attractive. However, it is always important for women to do thorough manual evaluation of their own breast tissue, and to have the practitioner do likewise.
Computerized regulation thermography, or CRT, is an objective, non-invasive, and safe way of evaluating the body’s functions. CRT, also simply called thermography, is a medical imaging method that supplies information as meaningful as that obtained through an MRI or X ray. Current medical journals contain more than 12,000 citations and studies on thermography.
CRT evaluates body functions by a direct temperature measurement probe instead of by measuring thermal radiation. This scanning method is far more precise than any other thermographic system.
Each internal organ and gland has a corresponding point on the skin. A technician, holding a direct temperature measurement probe, measures the temperature of 68 points on the body. Measurements occur simply by touching a probe against these 68 points. There is no discomfort. Next, the patient partially disrobes, which gives the body a chance to cool. These same points are measured again 10 minutes later.
More on Alternative Therapies (38 articles available)More from Annie B. Bond (3188 articles available)
Annie B.
Melissa
Jana
Kelly
Lily
Terri
Heather L.
Lynn
Carl
Betsy
Cait
Avery
The Gallands
Eric
Andrew
Dave
Deepak
7 comments
add your comment »I had breast cancer in 2001 -mastectomy followed by chemo and now after adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen for 5yrs I am on Letrozole.
Where in India can I get thermography?Mammography is painful>
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
After having breast cancer in 2000, I decided that having thermographies would be a better option because of the early detection. Only one place in New Zealand that did them and I travelled every 6 months. In 2006, I was once again diagnosed with breast cancer - this was because I felt a lump, had a mammogram, and ultrasound, and then confirmation that I had another type of breast cancer. What happened to the thermography picking up anything - my last thermography 4 months earlier - it showed nothing. I questioned this and they re-checked - nope - nothing there. That is a worry - so all should be aware that every possible testing should be used. Unfortunately now I have ct scans and bone scans to make sure that all is OK - that is worse! But I don't have too many options now. And no, I would not bother with thermographies again. In Australia they now believe that will be able to market a testing using a hair sample - I will try that if and when it is available. Hate mammograms, have no faith in thermographies so anything is worth a try!
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Wonder who funded that study?
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
The last time I went in for a mammogram, I told the tech that one of these days I was going to refuse the procedure until the radiologist agreed to have his testicles examined in the machine. They told me that mammography is "state of the art". I returned that in that case they'd better get busy inventing something better.
In my experience (and that of many of my friends) mammography is not only painful, but does damage, dropping breast tissue by as much as half an inch per session!
So THANK YOU for giving us a viable option!
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Label me a suspicious type - claims that "low levels" of radiation do no harm have been thoroughly discredited (albeit often by independent research which is ignored in the mainstream). I haven't time to search right now, but believe there has also been some evidence that mammograms could actually cause cancer in some women. I doubt that any method is ideal for all women or situations. Thermography seems at least the safer of the options. By the way - heresy - I also suspect that some cancers, especially small ones, may actually go away without treatment. Finally, there is vast denial of the huge number of cases in which treatment, testing and pharmaceuticals result in lethal or devastating "side" effects. Call me a believer in holistic and natural. In my defense, most of the countries of the world use natural, traditional and herbal, many cover homeopathy, naturopathy, etc., with their national health plans - with FAR BETTER HEALTH RESULTS than our high tech, drug company controlled medical system.
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Hi. I get routine thermography scans each year and have read similar to what Annie has written. My issue is with the radiation from the mammograms. Plus, mammograms hurt.
For those in between not liking either option, my doctor offered to write a presciption for a MRI in lieu of the radiation. The only con was that insurance may not pay for this expensive procedure.
Annie, I am glad you wrote about it. I have a stack of literature given to me to write about thermography as well for my blog, Green Talk but I haven't had the time. Anna
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
The above sounds interesting, but here's an excerpt of what I found on the Mayo Clinic's site. I'm not sure which approach is better, but I think it suggests caution before using one method exclusively. "This technology is most effective in detecting tumors that are close to the skin surface but not tumors deeper in the breast. Also, breast thermography is not sensitive enough to detect small cancers.
Breast thermography is not routinely used for breast cancer detection and should not be used instead of mammograms. Scientists continue to investigate the usefulness of thermography in detecting breast cancer." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-thermography/AN01410
flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?