No More Pink Please

UPDATE: 11 April 2011 -  The "Race" campaigns are once again in motion and so far I have yet to hear one thing about the fact that this cancer has been cured.

Just where does the $ go?

Top 4 of 30+ from Natural Health News

Thermography 90, Mammogram 50
May 21, 2010
A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...
Better to Screen You with Thermography, My Dear...
Oct 23, 2009
"Rethink" of Cancer Screening Triggers Comments and Controversy By Nick Mulcahy October 23, 2009 — In a comment that has triggered widespread media coverage, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) admitted that ...
Call For A Differing Viewpoint
Jun 30, 2010
A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...
Supplement Suppresses Breast Cancer Cells
Oct 11, 2010
No one wanted you to learn that there are safer screening methods (thermography) and safer therapy approaches that include nutrition, herbs, vitamins, and other natural therapies ( ex: JBNI herbal formulas all tested at Dana Farber), ...

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

NEW - How much pink turns into green?  

Looks as if some people are catching on, says Komen Foundation rated only as a B+ which means much less than 75% of donations are used for goals.  A pretty high adminsitrative rate if you ask me, when 7% should be the target.

and

 "I don't think people understand the lack of progress"

The stark reality is that in the 26 years since the campaign began, deaths from breast cancer have dropped only slightly — about 2% per year, starting in 1990. According to the National Breast Cancer Coalition in Washington, D.C., 117 women in the U.S. died of breast cancer every day in 1991; today that number is 110.

Just the other day I was out shopping about 80 miles from where I live. I was on a mission as I was looking for some specific items.Every turn I made up another aisle was a woman talking on a cell phone.

Exasperated, I finally had had enough and when I went on yet another aisle in yest anotehr store I yelled out " Not you too!" This woman was no more than a foot from me chatting on her cell phone, holding it between her ear and shoulder.

I looked her straight in the eye and said, "Don't you know cell phones are linked to breast and thyroid cancer, and can cause heart disease?"

In a quick, and all too common reply, she said, "That hasn't been scientifically proven."

My answer was, "Yes it has, since the 1940s!"

Of course too few know the real risk of cell phones and WIFI, but the cellular providers do, and so do the scientists.

Even more amazing was when, while channel flipping, I heard Dr. OZ tell poeple that you have to shield your thyroid when you get ANY x-ray (even mammogram) or you will be at risk for thyroid cancer, because x-ray is cumulative. And, YES, this means that when you opt for radiation treatment if you have breast cancer you can get thyroid cancer and heart failure.  Just something we have been teaching at CHI for decades.

Now that this cat is out of the mainstream bag, ask about options to give you better and earlier screening and least risk of more cancer.

Natural Health News: Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

May 21, 2010

Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ACS wakes up to newer, better, and safer screening for breast cancer. Big Insurance needs to wake up as well! ...

Yes, Mammogram isn't as beneficial as you are told

Sep 23, 2010

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram. It is more effective and better for women under 50. Yes! Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%. It is well past time the ensconced ...

Better to Screen You with Thermography, My Dear...

Oct 23, 2009

"Rethink" of Cancer Screening Triggers Comments and Controversy By Nick Mulcahy October 23, 2009 — In a comment that has triggered widespread media coverage, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) admitted that ...

Ultrasound in Cancer Detection

Oct 07, 2009

If you're fortunate enough to be living near Toronto, your choice for breast screening for about 10 years could have been Thermography Clinic, Inc., a company started in 1998 as an integrative medical practice specializing in the care ...

And please THINK before you raise money for PINK.  If this was for a cure, then it would have been here long before now. (BTW, Natural methods are offering cure)

Radiation of any kind increases cancer risk

Sep 05, 2008

This is why for more than a decade we have been saying THINK Before You Pink! Women's Health Month is March, and that is not too far away. FDA Warns of Potential of Serious Side Effects with Topical Numbing Agents ...

These and at least 30 more articles may be found at Natural Health News, and even more at Leaflady.org

PINK Cause Marketing

Oct 05, 2009

4 September 2010 - The Pink Cause Marketing is getting underway once again. I just received a spam from a PR firm about a massage clinic in Seattle that would give $15 from each massage to the Komen Foundation. ...

Pink ribbon overkill: Exploitation?

Oct 13, 2009

Walk into almost any store this month, and you'll be hit with a wash of pink products -- pink clogs, pink vegetable peelers, pink cleaning products, even pink food -- sold in support of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. ...

The Trouble With PINK

Aug 14, 2006

When you dig into a strawberry Yoplait yogurt, take a moment to contemplate where the beautiful pink color comes from. Strawberries? Think again. It comes from crushed bugs. Specifically, from the female cochineal beetles and their eggs ...

Maybe Its Pink, Maybe Its Not Breast Healthy

Feb 11, 2008

Currently the legislature in Hawaii is contemplating a ban on aspartame. I have spoken out about this toxin for decades. I speak out as well about the risk of its heir, sucralose. Both should be avoided without question. ...

Winding Down Pink Projects for This Year

Oct 31, 2007

... who gave their life while in the race to cure this serious health problem. Just think before you pink...and demand thermography! This information is provided by Creating Health Institute through our Health Matters(c) project.

October Pink Promotions

Oct 01, 2008

In your effort to not be swayed by massive marketing of pink lids on toxic products join the campaign to stop Yoplait from using rGBH hormone laced milk to make their synthetic goop. Yoplait touts its yogurt as being healthy for women, ...

PINK TIPS

Oct 02, 2009

PINK TIP - Women who have poor diets, low in antioxidants and high in omega-6 fats (vegetable oils such as corn, safflower, sunflower, peanut, soybean and canola oils), are at much greater risk for breast cancer. ...

ReThink Pink

Oct 31, 2009

As the pink madness of the October 2009 programming winds down, because today is October 31, I am pleased to provide readers with this very good article from an MD with an open mind. As more and more doctors and other health ...

THINK BEFORE YOU PINK

Oct 04, 2007

I'm sure you very infrequently hear the facts about radiation exposure(mammogram) and increasing your risk of developing breast cancer. Every year CHI tries to educate more people about this scientifically proven risks, often to deaf ...

UK Physician Speaks Against Pink October

Oct 08, 2008

D. Mail 7.10.08 "DOES BREAST CANCER SCREEING DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD?" Interview by Thea Jourdan. Michael Baum, Emertitius Prof. of Surgery at University College, London writes: (shortened) Each year I dread Breast Cancer Awareness month ...

Using our search engine you can locate many other interesting articles for your health and education.

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer,breast cancer and cell phones,mammogram,pink,thermography,thyroid

Why 98.6 May Be Good For Your Body

A mathematical model finds that a temperature of about 98.6 F is high enough to ward off the majority of fungal infections, but still low enough to only require a manageable level of food intake.

As a bitter winter storm rages on the east coast, it’s hard to knock being warm-blooded. But what about the metabolic cost of maintaining a high body-temperature? Well, a new study finds that we and many other mammals keep up such a torrid temp because it’s a Goldilocks situation—98.6 is just right.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine researchers previously showed that every one degree Celsius rise in body temperature wards off about 6 percent more fungal species. So tens of thousands of fungi can infect reptiles and amphibians, but we can only be invaded by a few hundred fungi.
In the new work, the researchers created a mathematical model that weighed the fungal protection benefits versus the metabolic cost of high body-temperature. And the optimal temperature was 98.1, quite close to what evolution figured out. The research was published in the open-access journal mBio. [Aviv Bergman and Arturo Casadevall, Mammalian Endothermy Optimally Restricts Fungi and Metabolic Costs]
Too low a temperature and we’re far more susceptible to fungal infections. Too high a temperature and we’d spend all our time taking in fuel to burn. So 98.6, like that middle bowl of porridge, is just right.
—Steve Mirsky
Read complete article or listen to podcast.

Also think Thermography.

Read more »

Posted in: body temperature,thermography

Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram.  It is more effective and better for women under 50.

Yes!  Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%.

It is well past time the ensconced ACS wakes up to newer, better, and safer screening for breast cancer.

Big Insurance needs to wake up as well!

Scan that spots breast cancer like a heat seeking missile

By Jerome Burne
Last updated at 10:30 AM on 18th May 2010

A technology originally developed by the U.S. military for night vision could soon help young women cut their risk of developing breast cancer.

A study due to be published on Wednesday found that this technology - used in medical scanning - vastly improved the chances of spotting early signs of a tumour in women under the age of 50.

The breast tissue of younger women tends to be denser, which makes conventional mammogram scans less reliable.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1279215/Scan-spots-breast-cancer-like-heat-seeking-missile.html#ixzz0oZuR7YuR

The web site mentioned in this article promotes MRI and ultrasound, also less cancer promoting than mammogram and doing a better diagnostic job as well.

Dense breast increases cancer risk

Published: May 21, 2010 at 1:04 AM

ROCHESTER, N.Y., May 21 (UPI) -- Seventy-four percent of U.S. woman say they have had a mammogram, while 66 percent say they get mammograms on a regular basis, a survey indicates.
However, the national poll by Harris Interactive of 599 adult women age 40 and older, conducted April 28 to 30, indicates 95 percent of women age 40 and older do not know their breast density and nearly 90 percent do not know denser breast increases the risk of breast cancer.
Nancy M. Cappello, founder of Are You Dense, a non-profit organization dedicated to informing the public about dense breast tissue, says the survey indicates 9 percent of doctors discuss breast density with women.
"Prior to finding out I had advanced breast cancer, I had annual mammograms, I ate healthy and exercised and didn't have a first-degree relative with breast cancer. But I didn't have all the information I needed," Cappello says in a statement. "What I didn't know was that I have dense breast tissue and like two-thirds of pre-menopausal women and one quarter of post-menopausal women, I have a much lower chance of having breast cancer detected by a mammogram."
However, Dr. Rachel Brem of George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates in Washington says although ultrasound is a proven tool in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, it has not typically been used for screening.
"Several studies have shown that for women with dense breast tissue, supplementing mammograms with ultrasound can increase detection from 48 percent to 97 percent."
More information is at: areyoudense.org.

http://leaflady.org/women.htm
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/better-to-screen-you-with-thermography.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/ultrasound-in-cancer-detection.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/02/women-kept-in-dark-when-it-comes-to.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/01/dangers-of-screening-mammography.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2008/09/radiation-of-any-kind-iincreases-cancer.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-to-rethink-mammogram.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/halo-breast-test.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2005/10/breast-health-awareness-day.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2007/10/think-before-you-pink.html
and there are over 30 more posts found here at Natural Health News

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer prevention,mammogram,thermography

Better to Rethink Mammogram

UPDATE: 1 December

The US Government has known since the 1960s and perhaps before that mammogram causes breast cancer, they just failed to tell you so an industry could be created on false findings.

Mammogram Radiation May Put Some Women at Risk
By Julie Steenhuysen
Reuters
CHICAGO

Low-dose radiation from mammograms and chest X-rays may increase the risk of breast cancer in young women who are already at high risk because of family history or genetic susceptibility, Dutch researchers said on Tuesday.
They said high-risk women, especially those under 30, may want to consider switching to an alternative screening method such as magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, which does not involve exposure to radiation.

"Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young, high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted," said Marijke Jansen-van der Weide of the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands.

"I should recommend to be careful with radiation before 30 and to think about alternatives," Jansen-van der Weide, who presented her findings at the Radiological Society of North America meeting in Chicago, said in a telephone interview.

For the study, Jansen-van der Weide pooled data from six published studies that involved 12,000 high-risk women from Europe and the United States.

The team found that of the 8,500 women who had been exposed to radiation from chest X-rays or mammograms before the age of 20 or those who had had five or more exposures were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than other high-risk women who had not been exposed. read full story

UPDATE: 29 November

The Basic Problem With Screening Mammography
Reservoir of Silent Disease

The basic underlying problem with screening for breast cancer with mammography

is the "reservoir of silent disease". A series of autopsy studies show that indolent breast cancers are common in the population. These early cancers, called DCIS, are silent and rarely cause clinical disease. The most impressive study was from Denmark in 1987. The Danish group used specimen radiography on autopsy samples, which most closely approximates what screening mammography does, searching for and finding small clusters of calcifications. The Danish team found breast cancer in one out of five women, most of which was DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ).

One out of 5 women show breast cancer at autopsy, yet only 2 to 3 women per 10,000 die from breast cancer annually. (20% vs .03%) This indicates a disconnect between the huge reservoir of silent and clinically insignificant disease, and the much smaller numbers of invasive breast cancer presenting clinically.

DCIS in 18% of the Population

Current screening mammography technology detects >60,000 cases of DCIS annually, and this is only a small fraction of total DCIS which is present in one out of five women in the population. DCIS is ductal carcinoma in situ, an early form of cancer with good prognosis, a 98% five year survival with no treatment. I expect future refinements in xray technology to allow detection of even greater numbers of DCIS cases which have small calcifications. Ultimately the technology will catch up and replicate the Danish autopsy findings.

Do we really want to be detecting DCIS in one out of five women, and submit all these women to biopsy and lumpectomy? This is exactly what is advocated by the corporate-government-media sponsored mammography screening programs.

Just Stop Calling It Cancer

Recently, an NIH panel has asked pathologists to stop calling DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ). Here is the NIH Consensus statement: "Because of the noninvasive nature of DCIS, coupled with its favorable prognosis, strong consideration should be given to elimination of the use of the anxiety-producing term “carcinoma” from the description of DCIS. "

Less is Better

I beg to offer a differing opinion more in line with the US Preventive Task Force revisions. The detection of massive numbers of cases of DCIS results in harmful over-treatment of the population with little benefit in terms of reduced mortality from breast cancer. This opinion is echoed by Dr Laura Esserman in a recent JAMA article on the limitations, and disappointing benefits of screening mammography.

Cancer Prevention With Iodine Supplementation

The discovery of a large reservoir of silent disease is a wake-up call that something is dreadfully wrong. Rather than screen the population for small calcifications, called DCIS, generating massive numbers of lucrative procedures with biopsies and lumpectomies that have little impact on overall mortality, I suggest a better approach.

The evidence is overwhelming that Iodine deficiency causes breast cancer, and Iodine supplementation prevents and treats breast cancer. Iodine supplementation is a less expensive and more effective alternative to the corporate-government-media sponsored runaway train called mammogram screening.

Radiation Exposure Causes Breast Cancer

Iodine tablets are available from Natural Health News, just contact us to order.

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

ORIGINAL POST 11/17

Larry King had a discussion last evening about the mammography controversy.  One of his guests was the TV OB-GYN Lisa Masterson who was very aggressive in her defense of this practice.

Listening to the other guests and Masterson discuss this topic it made it so very clear how graduate education seeks to make one believe that certain things are written in stone, and should never change.  And so once you've received your diploma and later a license if you are in a licensed profession, you will often go to great ends to defend what you were taught rather than look to see if there might be something else more effective.

As a person with an investigative mine I did look for all of the options and I will continue to support the science behind the dark side of mammogram that no one seems to want you to know.   And I will encourage thermography.

Mammogram accounts for finding 10% of all breast cancer cases. The woman herself discovers the other 90% of breast cancer cases.


Although the numbers are recorded separately from other breast cancers by the American Cancer Society, DCIS, Ductile Carcinoma in Situ accounts for 40% of all breast cancer detected by mammogram. DCIS is abnormal (sometimes called pre-cancerous) cells confined to the milk ducts of the breasts. (source:leaflady.org)

There are at least 45 articles here on Natural Health News addressing the issue of mammogram, and specifically the issue that it is known to increase breast cancer.

I think Dr. Susan Love is correct when she says the focus needs to be on prevention and finding out why so many younger women are getting breast cancer.

Of course there are many factors such as hormones, cell phones, fluoridated water, vaccines, environmental toxins, BPA, pharmaceutical drugs, cosmetics....and I am sure you can think of several others.

Instead of outrage, and of course knowing that Big Insurance will take this chance to limit screening as a cost cutting action, get more knowledgeable about the real facts on this issue.  And demand better methods of screening that detect sooner and do not increase your exposure to radiation that also can cause severe thyroid and heart problems.

There are some 22 articles regarding thermography, ultrasound and Breast Self Exam here and more here.

http://leaflady.org/mammography_risk1.html
http://www.leaflady.org/breast_thermography.htm
http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/natural-notes/1631-not-pretty-in-pink.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_mammogram_advice

Read more »

Posted in: ACS,breast self exam,Larry King,Lisa Masterson,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural regression breast cancer,Sheryl Crow,thermography

Breast Self-Exam is Important

I'm a bit taken by the latest propaganda from cancer and breast cancer groups, the media folks and others in the attempt to down play the importance of Breast Self Examination (BSE).

Of course along with the negative information given out lately about BSE there is always some need to tell you to you get more cumulative, breast-cancer-causing radiation exposure with your annual screening mammogram.

I was happy though to hear that a member of Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida, making a strong point in favor of BSE. She found her own cancer this way.

I urge you, and to young women especially, to read more here, learn about BSE, and include it in your personal care routines every month.

And remember Breast Thermography: For Earliest Detection and Intervention

Women Denied Truth On Breast Cancer Testing
By Sarah Boseley

Women must be told the full truth about breast screening, which may in some cases expose them to surgery and radiotherapy more damaging than the early cancerous tissue it detects, argues a controversial paper in the British Medical Journal today.

The paper says women are being patronised by being denied the proper information on which to make their decision to be screened or not. "The question of whether the benefits of screening outweigh the harms is essentially a value judgment. The problem is that, up to now, this judgment has been made by paternalistic agents of the state rather than by women," the authors say.

While deaths from breast cancer have dropped since screening began, there is no unambiguous data as to what part screening has played alongside the improvements in cancer treatment that took place over the same period.

The number of cancers has risen in recent years, but few realise that this is because screening is detecting them at a very early stage, when cells have just begun to undergo cancerous changes, say Hazel Thornton of Leicester University's department of epidemiology and public health, Adrian Edwards of the University of Wales department of primary care and Michael Baum, professor of surgery at University College, London, who helped set up the screening programme in 1987-8 but is now a consistent critic.

A fifth of the cancers now detected are ductal carcinoma in situ - where cells inside the milk ducts have begun to turn into cancer cells. This disease, the authors write, "has an uncertain natural course and those women who have heard of it find it hard to understand, as do many doctors; it is an early stage of disease that results in a 40% mastectomy rate". Women are faced with a difficult decision: whether to undergo surgery or wait and see whether cancer develops.

Women invited for NHS screening are not told, the paper says, that the US preventive task force found that 1,224 women aged 40 to 74 needed to be screened for 14 years to prevent one death from breast cancer.

"These are pertinent facts for a woman to know when attempting to decide how to manage her risk. The [US] researchers concluded that the age at which the trade-off between benefit and harm becomes acceptable 'is a subjective judgment that cannot be answered on scientific grounds'."

There are tensions between the drive to get as many women screened as possible and promoting real informed choice among women, say the authors. "Most women who are screened have neither suffered nor been educated about the reality of the uncertainties, harms and limitations of screening or the consequences of finding pathology of borderline importance."

Women want balanced information, they say. "Although some doctors may be concerned about admitting scientific uncertainty, honesty can enhance patients' respect for the profession.

A paper in the Lancet today says that women whose ductal carcinoma in situ is detected should undergo radiotherapy after the tissue is removed. Scientists from Cancer Research UK and the medical research council say trials have shown that radiotherapy reduces the chance of recurrence by 60%, while the cancer drug tamoxifen cuts it by only 10%.

SocietyGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer awareness,breast cancer detection,breast self exam,Debbie Wasserman Schultz,mammogram causes breast cancer,prevent breast cancer,thermography

Question Authority and Breast Screening

Since 2005 I have posted 45 articles on Natural Health News regarding the risks and hazards of mammogram.

For more than 20 years I have been questioning mammogram and educating people about the known facts that mammogram does not statistically improve discovery, treatment and or cure of breast cancer, and in deed, increases the incidence.

All of this has been known for more than 50 years.

Just this week I sent a message to the Inland NW contingent of the Komen Foundation who are gearing up for another "Race for the Cure". My message was the same: "Why aren't you providing women with the facts about mammogram?"

I also asked why there is no information about thermography, a better screening test with earlier detection and no risk of increasing rates of breast cancer.

You can get the information you need from our non-profit organization with a donation. We do not get any greatly needed donations from pink lids.

Even the local media outlets have refused my efforts over many years, although more then five years ago, one did give some coverage to my concerns.

Women who are most at risk of developing breast cancer deserve better.

CHI's Healthy Handout on Risks of Mammography is available with a donation.

Breast Cancer: To Screen Or Not To Screen?

ScienceDaily (2009-04-04) -- Women are often told that mammography saves lives. But rarely is the question asked, "how often?" Researchers set out to examine how often this life-saving event occurs. ... > read full article

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,breast cancer awareness,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,natural news,prevent breast cancer,thermography,women's health

Women's Health Month and Propaganda

During March our organization sponsors a class for women called "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You".

This has always been very popular and we educate more women every year on this facts of the breast cancer scam and other very specific issues for women's health.

The major reason we have sponsored this program is to help women learn how to be better advocates for their health and not fall prey to substandard health care.

We also do not wish for you to be subjected to forced mammogram, which has been proposed under universal health care. You have rights, you need to be informed, and you need choices.

One of the "Healthy Handouts" we publish is a fact sheet on mammography. It is very important to understand why mammogram is a factor in the increased rates of breast cancer, as is a cell phone, WIFI, and Yoplait.

You can get a copy of this Healthy Handout by making a donation to our parent organization, Creating Health Institute, at PayPal.

In the interim we hope you will consider more about thermography.

We hope too that you will visit our colleague at Thermomed, especially good if you are located in the SoCal area.

Women need to take back the night on their own health and not fall prey to the purveyors of radiation, chemo, and other cancer promoting modalities.

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,awareness,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,prevent breast cancer,thermography,Thermomed,women's health

Radiation of any kind increases cancer risk

UPDATE: 19 January, 2009 -More mammography madness, women's health really not a priority - Thermography needs to become the treatment of choice and women should not be subjected to high risk of harm or breast cancer (along with heart and thyroid damage from the screening). This is why for more than a decade we have been saying THINK Before You Pink! Women's Health Month is March, and that is not too far away.

FDA Warns of Potential of Serious Side Effects with Topical Numbing Agents
By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: January 16, 2009

ROCKVILLE, Md., Jan. 16 -- The FDA has issued a second warning about the potential dangers of using topical anesthetics for relieving pain from medical tests and conditions.

The latest advisory was prompted by a report last summer on the results of a randomized trial evaluating the use of lidocaine for the pain and discomfort of mammography. (See: Pre-Mammography Painkiller May Ease the Pinch)

The researchers found that women using lidocaine -- which was spread over the breasts and chest wall and covered with plastic wrap for a total absorption time of about 45 minutes -- reported significantly less discomfort than those using acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or placebo.

"Although no serious side effects were reported in this study," the FDA warning read, "it was not large enough to evaluate whether uncommon but serious reactions could occur with this use.

"FDA remains concerned about the potential for topical anesthetics to cause serious and life-threatening adverse effects when applied to a large area of skin or when the area of application is covered," the advisory read.

The agency said that some of the topical medication can pass into the blood stream upon application.

Under certain circumstances -- if a large area of skin is covered, the drug is applied to broken skin, or skin temperature increases -- the amount of medication entering the blood stream may be toxic, causing irregular heartbeat, seizures, breathing difficulties, coma, and death, the agency said.

This latest warning repeats the concerns of an advisory issued in February 2007 following the deaths of two women, ages 22 and 25, who applied topical anesthetics to their legs and covered them in plastic wrap to numb the anticipated pain of laser hair removal.

Both women had seizures, fell into a coma, and subsequently died because of the drugs' toxic effects.

The drugs involved were lidocaine and tetracaine.

The FDA advised physicians to determine whether a topical anesthetic would create the necessary pain relief when considering its use for any purpose and whether an alternate treatment would be as effective.

If a topical anesthetic is determined to be the best choice, the agency recommended using the lowest amounts possible, applying the medications as sparingly as possible, avoiding broken or irritated skin, and being aware that wrapping or applying heat to the areas treated with the medications can increase the risk of serious side effects.

and

Breast Imaging Premedication to Reduce Discomfort during Screening Mammography1
Colleen K. Lambertz, MSN, MBA, FNP, Christopher J. Johnson, MPH, Paul G. Montgomery, MD, and James R. Maxwell, MD

1 From the St Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute (C.K.L., P.G.M.), 100 E Idaho St, Boise, ID 83712; Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, Idaho (C.J.J.); and St Luke's Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho (J.R.M.). Received August 27, 2007; revision requested November 1; final revision received November 29; accepted January 24, 2008; final revision accepted March 4. Supported by the Mountain States Tumor Medical Research Institute grant. Address correspondence to C.K.L. (e-mail: lambertc{at}slrmc.org).

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that premedication with acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and/or 4% lidocaine gel would decrease discomfort and improve satisfaction with screening mammography in women who expect a higher level of discomfort.

Materials and Methods: In this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–approved, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 418 women aged 32–89 years who expected substantial discomfort with screening mammography were randomly divided to receive premedication with acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and/or 4% lidocaine gel. Subjects provided informed written consent. The primary outcome was discomfort. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction and plans for future mammography on the basis of discomfort. Subjects completed structured questionnaires with visual analog scales to measure discomfort and satisfaction. A generalized linear mixed-models framework was used to assess the effect of medications on discomfort during mammography, and satisfaction with technologist and machine combinations was included as a random effect. The "plans for mammography next year" outcome was modeled by using a binary distribution and logit link function.

Results: Discomfort was significantly lower in the lidocaine gel group (P = .01). Satisfaction was significantly negatively correlated with discomfort (P < .001). Satisfaction and whether or not the subject had delayed her mammography because of fear of discomfort had significant effects on plans to undergo mammography next year (P < .001 for both). There were significant differences in discomfort between different combinations of technologists and machines.

Conclusion: Premedication with 4% lidocaine gel significantly reduced discomfort during screening mammography, and reduced discomfort may improve the likelihood of future mammographic screening and early detection of breast cancer.
(Radiology 2008;248:765-772.)© RSNA, 2008

Originally posted 9/5/08, Our new paper is linked with facts you do want to know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, about 800,000 women around the world are diagnosed with early breast cancer.

It amazes me that there is so much closed minded "research" aiming at co-opting women to believe that mammogram or other radiation exposure is good for them to detect cancer earlier and better.

The fact is that tumours picked up on mammogram are at least 8-10 years old. If you are 40 and get a mammogram (x-ray) every year, the risk of your getting cancer rises exponentially. Why aren't you being told this?

Other less intrusive and decidedly less risky diagnostic techniques have been around for a long time. Ultrasound is one, but that still relies on EMF or radio waves, but it is a far sight safer than X-RAY.

Another health impact that seems to be overlooked in this allegedly novel approach is that radioactive "tracers" or dyes are in use. Often there is no pre-test screening to determine if you have an allergy to the substance. These allergies may elicit anaphylactic reactions and death. Other considerations is the impact of radioactive substances on your endocrine system, especially your thyroid gland.

Mammography does not save or extend lives and is not a justifiable practice. So how much money do insurance companies and consumers pay out for radiation treatment of breast cancer? This practice results in only a less than 1% chance of improving survival. Is this worth such a large investment when so many medical claims are denied and there is virtually zero coverage of preventive practices? from the Lancet 2000; 355: 129-134.

and versus MBI
One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

and they are again experimenting with an unproven technology that may be exciting to the researchers, but harmful to your health as there are no long term studies. Once again the lab rats are lining up to be experimented on, and paying to do so.

And by the way, don't overlook the fact that it is you that become the lab rat in this an in many other mainstream medical situations.

Thermography is really your better bet. Stand up for your health and demand this test.

Study: New way to spot breast cancer shows promise
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer
Wed Sep 3, 2008

A radioactive tracer that "lights up" cancer hiding inside dense breasts showed promise in its first big test against mammograms, revealing more tumors and giving fewer false alarms, doctors reported Wednesday.

The experimental method — molecular breast imaging, or MBI — would not replace mammograms for women at average risk of the disease.

But it might become an additional tool for higher risk women with a lot of dense tissue that makes tumors hard to spot on mammograms, and it could be done at less cost than an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging. About one-fourth of women 40 and older have dense breasts.

"MBI is a promising technology" that is already in advanced testing, said Carrie Hruska, a biomedical engineer at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been working on it for six years.

She gave results in a telephone news briefing Wednesday and will present them later this week at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Washington, D.C.

Mammograms — a type of X-ray — are the chief way now to check for breast cancer. MBI uses radiation, too, but in a different way. Women are given an intravenous dose of a short-acting tracer that is absorbed more by abnormal cells than healthy ones. Special cameras collect the "glow" these cells give off, and doctors look at the picture to spot tumors.

Researchers tried both methods, on 940 women who had dense breasts and a high risk of cancer because of family history, bad genes or other reasons.

Thirteen tumors were found in 12 women — eight by MBI alone, one by mammography alone, two by both methods and two by neither. (The two missed cancers were found on subsequent annual mammograms, physical exams or other imaging tests.)

Looked at another way, MBI found 10 out of 13 tumors, missing three; mammograms detected three out of 13 tumors and missed 10. Using both methods, 11 out of 13 tumors would have been detected.

"These images are quite striking. You can see how the cancers would be hidden on the mammograms," Hruska said.

Mammograms gave false alarms — led doctors to conclude that cancer was present when it was not — in about 9 percent of patients, compared to only 7 percent for MBI. The MBI tests led to more biopsies than mammograms did, but they more often revealed cancer.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes the imaging agent used in the study, paid for the work.

The next test will be to see how MBI stacks up against MRI. The federal government is paying for a new study Mayo is leading that compares the two in 120 high-risk women with dense breasts.

MRI is often used now for women with dense breasts, but it gives many false alarms that lead to unnecessary biopsies. Doctors hope MBI will prove more accurate and cost less — under $500 versus more than $1,000 for an MRI.

"We all know that mammography is, in and of itself, an imperfect tool, and we clearly need to do better in the future," said Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, a spokesman for the oncology group. "It is fair to say that MRI will not solve all problems either."

One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

"We're just beginning to see what this technology can do," she said.
___

On the Net:
Cancer conference: http://www.asco.org and http://www.cancer.net
Mayo Clinic: http://tinyurl.com/5rrwx3
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

Related articles

Read more »

Posted in: independent health news,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,mammogram hazards,natural health expert,natural health news,radiation,thermography