Safe screening alternative to Mammograms dates for Wellington

Thermogram - Before and after
treatment

The next Wellington clinic is August 4th - 8th, and one more this year in November, 24th - 28th.  (You can see those dates on ezybook or our clinicalthermography.co.nz website.)

Thanks..

Truly Godfrey

Thermographic Technician

022-1283390

Clinical Thermography Tauranga

07-5430832

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme: Click Here!

Are Mammograms ineffective?

Gary:
 If you have been following recent publicity that mammograms may be no more effective than breast self exams in detecting breast cancer, you may be feeling a little confused.  The response by those with vested interests in mammograms and all the business that comes downstream from them, is to discredit the research as "Seriously flawed", quoting "independent experts.  Please read the two articles below, follow the links and decide for yourself as to who is telling the truth.   By the way, its interesting to note the emotive language used in the first article.  Words like "denouncing".  And are the experts denouncing the study really "independent".  Rolf Hefti, in the 2nd article, enlightens us.

Finally, there are safe alternatives to breast x-rays, including the totally non invasive breast thermogram which many of my female clients have had regularly.

More here about thermograms.

Garbage In, Garbage Out: A Flawed Study Cannot Measure the Value of Mammograms

A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) denouncing the value of mammography tore through the news cycle last week, leading many women to once again question the need for these breast cancer screenings. What was left out of many of the media reports are serious doubts about the validity of this study, an oversight that gives this research far more credibility than it deserves. The effect of this flawed study is that it is causing considerable confusion that will ultimately put women's lives at risk.

There are multiple problems with the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which independent reviewers of the research have pointed out. One of the most glaring is the poor quality of the mammograms used in the study, which were taken in the early 1980s, when the technology was nowhere near as good as it is today. In fact, even for its time, these mammogram images were considered below-standard. There have been major advances in mammography since then, with today's digital mammography providing far superior images than older technology. This is especially important for younger women, who tend to have denser breasts and are exactly the group that was the major focus of this study: women ages 40 to 49.

Mammography is only as good as the pictures it takes and can only detect cancer if the image is clear enough to see it. Given that this study was based on poor-quality pictures, it is irresponsible to make any claims about the effectiveness of mammograms in saving lives. It would be like evaluating the current state of auto safety based on cars driven three decades ago.

There are also serious questions about whether this was a truly randomized study, which is the gold standard of research and what this study claims to be. A physical breast exam was done on every woman before they were assigned to the study group (those who had a mammogram) and the control group (those who did not). The high rate of women with detectable cancers who ended up in the mammography group (68 percent) has raised concerns that women whose cancers were detected in the initial exam may have been knowingly assigned to the mammography group, which would skew the results.

Additionally, this study only looked at the benefit of mammograms on survival -- whether a woman lives or dies. It does not measure the quality of life of those who have been diagnosed with cancer. Mammograms allow us to catch a cancer at an early stage, which can mean avoiding chemotherapy or a mastectomy -- treatments that can be extremely difficult to endure both physically and mentally. There are important benefits beyond survival that should not be overlooked in research.
There's no doubt that mammography is not perfect, but until we have better screening tests and more precise ways to identify the women who would most benefit from screening and treatment, Breastcancer.org strongly encourages women to follow current guidelines: annual mammograms starting at age 40. It could save your life.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-weiss-md/garbage-in-garbage-out-a-_b_4824005.html

Please read this letter by Rolf Hefti
(Gary: click here - His E-Book about mammograms is a must read)

About 10 days ago a new study of mammography got published in the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal, that revealed negative findings about the test.

Practically overnight some very loud defenders of mammography, such as Harvard radiologist Dr. Kopans, strongly and viciously discredited the piece of work in a response submission to the BMJ.
I submitted my own response to the editors of the BMJ specifically dealing, i.e., debunking, Kopans accusations against the new study as mostly glaring misrepresentations. (So far, Kopans hasn't sent in to the BMJ a rebuttal of my critique of his allegations against the new study.)

Other responses poured in at the BMJ. One negative commentary to the new trial I expected to come in was by Dr. Tabar, a longtime mammogram researcher, because I've discussed some of his studies and dealings in my ebook "The Mammogram Myth". 

Anyway, I then worked on a rebuttal of Tabar's bitter assault of the new "anti-mammogram" study but decided not to submit it to the BMJ.

Instead, I sort of combined my critique of both Kopans and Tabar in one article, named "The Critique Of The Latest Anti-mammogram Study: Scientific Or Political?" that now got released at another site.

Reading through it might be instrumental in discovering some of the fundamental, general workings of the mainstream medical establishment and medical "science".

You can access the piece from my website's homepage under the category 'Rolf Hefti's Off-Site Articles: Other Articles By Rolf' or access the article directly... HERE

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme: Click Here!

Radiation Alert: More evidence that CT Scans cause cancer

"Let's play Fry Teddie"

"While CT scans have the potential for great benefits, they increase the risk of developing cancer; in many cases, an MRI or an ultrasound can provide similar information without this risk.  In this study, for lag (exclusion) period of one, five, and 10 years, the incidence rate for all cancers combined increased by 24%, 21%, and 18% respectively in the CT exposed group.  Eventual lifetime risk is likely to climb with longer followup."

http://gutsandgrowth.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/risk-from-ct-scans-best-data-to-date/

The take home message is this:

Refuse CT scans

Ask for the much safer options of a MRI or ultrasound.  In many medical cases, any scan is unnecessary.  CT scans are over-used with them being employed mostly for "fishing expeditions".

I am reading an academic dissertation at the moment about mamograms and the cancer industry that has gown up around them (More about this in another article once I have finished reading it). 

There is growing evidence that as many as 75% of all beast cancers are the consequence of medical and dental x-rays, including mamogram screening.  It may be as long as 10-40 years before the damage caused by an x-ray procedure expresses as a cancer.  All the x-rays that the population has been repeatedly and increasingly subjected to since the 1950's has been accumulating as population lifetime risks (Think dental, bone scans, CT scans, mamograms and even airport body scanners!). 

If the cancer risk for a mamogram is 1:1,000 and 250,000 women are irradiated, that will amount to an additional 25,000 cases of cancer over the lifetime of all those women.   We are now seeing this statistical risk as reality as successive echelons of repeatedly irradiated women march into old age: breast and other female cancers are now expressing themselves as an epidemic from young to old.

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme: Click Here!

More about the dangers of X-rays

Digital gadgets damaging children's spines

DANIELLE STREET

DANIELLE STREET/Fairfax NZ

MODERN HAZARD: Chiropractor Margaret Bryce says young people are damaging their spines by heavy usage of digital devices.

Children as young as 10 have spinal deformities caused by prolonged use of handheld devices, according to an Auckland chiropractor.
Margaret Bryce is deeply concerned by the increase in the number of people coming to her with straightening of the neck curve, or cervical kyphosis.

Rest of article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/9009972/Digital-gadgets-damaging-childrens-spines

_____________________________________
Gary:

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

Good article overall but it does highlight the unnecessary use of x-rays on young people, increasing their lifetime risk of developing cancer.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

We have got to stop relying on X-rays.  This technology is causing far too much harm.

Alternatives include:

• Looking, asking, observing, palpating - a lost art in medicine
• MRI imaging
• Ultrasound

Avoid all unnecessary x-rays, including airport body scanners.  Be particularly wary of x-rays of the head, neck, chest and abdomen.  Avoid x-rays of the long bones (they contain bone marrow which is very sensitive to radiation - Think "leukaemia").

In my experience the best part of 90% of all the x-rays done on people are unneccesary.

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme: Click Here!

Australian airport scanners are not proven safe and they impinge on basic human rights

"Electromagnetic fields and radiation damage DNA and enhance cell death rates and therefore they are a Ubiquitous Universal Genotoxic Carcinogen that enhances the rates of Cancer, Cardiac, Reproductive and Neurological disease and mortality in human populations. 

Therefore there is no safe threshold level. The only safe exposure level is zero, a position confirmed by dose-response trends in epidemiological studies."
Associate Professor, Dr Neil Cherry
http://www.neilcherry.com/index.php

Gary:

Dr Neil Cherry (1946 -2003) held the position of Associate Professor of Environmental Health at Lincoln University, New Zealand. Sadly, he is no longer with us.  Dr Cherry passed away in 2003 from the complications of motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease happens to be associated with the very environmental pollutant that Dr Cherry was researching: Non-ionising forms of radiation! 

Was it sheer coincidence that he contracted this rare disease of the nervous system, or was it caused by his work? Sadly, we will never know because he is a study of one.

Full body scanners are now in Australian airports

"Body scanners are "safe".

Source: Australian Dept of Infrastructure and Transport.

Who do you believe: The conclusions of Associate Professor, Neil Cherry or an un-referenced statement in a Government brochure?  By coincidence, the kind of radiation used in the Australian airport scanners are the same kind of radiation that Dr Cherry was exposed to when taking readings out in the field when doing his research.  

Recently, a close friend, was required to undergo a full body microwave scan before flying from Australia to New Zealand.  He was a bit grumpy when I collected him from Wellington airport.  I think it was because he felt his freedom of choice had been trampled upon.  Being a health professional with many years of experience working with xray imaging equipment, he is well aware of the lifetime hazards of exposure to any form of radiation, be it ionising or non-ionising.

He was prepared to strip naked before strangers rather than be subjected to the radiation scan; but was not given the choice.

Unlike places like the USA, if you are selected for a full body radiation scan by Australian authorities and you refuse, you will be stood down for 24 hours.  There is no option for a friendly pat-down, or to strip naked.  What this means is you will miss your flight and you must bear the full cost of rebooking your flights and any other penalties and disruptions.

The PR tells us that these airport radiation scanners are completely safe.  This is complete rubbish.  There is no proof of safety.  We will only know for sure, one way or another, some 20 years from now.  We all know about the connection with maternal xrays that were freely administered during the 50's and 60's and the consequent epidemic of childhood leukaemia don't we?  Well, it took decades after the introduction of medical xrays and countless thousands of deaths before the proof was sufficient to motivate positive action to protect the public.

Whether a form of radiation is ionising or non-ionising it still has the potential to harm you in many ways, including causing cancer and motor neurone disease.  Dr Cherry's research and his own demise is convincing of this.

My sister, Delwyn, and her husband, Brian, are both radar engineers.  Delwyn has told me that she refuses to enter any microwave or xray airport body scanner - and for good reason - all radiation, as reported by Dr Cherry, has the potential to cause irreparable genetic harm.  She opts for the pat down during her frequent travels.  Australia is no longer a destination for Delwyn and her family because the pat down is not an option over there.  

Instead of holidaying in Australia, they have decided to come to New Zealand this year.

Whoopee! New Zealand's gain is Australia's loss

Let's hope more and more health-conscious tourists do the same as Delwyn and Brian and come to nuclear and radiation-free New Zealand instead of being needlessly irradiated by Australia.

New Zealand: Clean-Green  with the friendly pat-down! 

Australia: The land of fire with the impersonal radiation chamber!

(My sincere apologies to my Australian friends and family: My scathing words are directed at your misguided officials and politicians - not you).

What the officials fail to tell you is that the radiation is concentrated within the first few millimetres of your flesh - which means that, while the total body dose may be very low, your skin, eyes, breasts, thyroid, lymph glands and testis - and possibly even your kidneys, adrenal glands and ovaries - may be getting a significant dose of radiation.  Quite frankly, we get far too much radiation from too many sources as it is without this unnecessary imposition.

If I hold a cell phone against my head, that is my choice.

If I stare into the microwave oven while heating my tea, that is my choice.

If I fly in a plane and subject myself to cosmic rays, that is my choice.

If I have a dental xray, that is my choice.

If I fly out of Australia and am asked to enter the chamber of a radiation-based body scanner, I have no choice.  (This is different from a metal detector, by the way.  Metal detectors are safe).

Having no choice but to be irradiated is unacceptable in a free society.  It tramples on our right not to be irradiated for any reasons other than medical.

Australia - Give the 99.99% of peaceful travellers the option of the friendly pat down.  Please!  Pretty please!

I ask you, my readers, to please oppose the installation of these scanners in our airports (This includes New Zealand and Australia).  If you are selected for a full body scan, claim that you have skin cancer or some rare nerve disease and must not be subjected to any form of radiation.  Get a doctor's letter, if you can.  Opt out and go for the grope, if its available. If the grope is not available, please take the matter up with your Member of Parliament and Prime Minister.

Further reading

Here is some more reading about the safety of xray imaging, including the original scientific article about the dangers of CT scans from the whistle-blower, Dr Semelka: more-about-x-ray-risks

 

_______________________________________

About this website

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation.  Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

More about x-ray risks

Fact:

Early X-ray machine

Repeated doses of x-rays from x-ray imaging do increase your risk of developing cancer. The most potent is CT scans, one session of which carries a 1/1,000 risk of developing cancer. You can curb the risk from excessive radiation by using other imaging methods that do not involve ionising radiation which include MRI and ultrasound.  Avoid all forms of radiation, be it ionising or non-ionising other than for medical purposes.

Here is the body of a letter sent to the radiation whistle blower, Dr Semelka:

"I am a radiologist and like you, Dr. Semelka and apparently too few others, am deeply concerned about the profligate use of CT that is currently the norm. I am especially concerned about the deep state of denial (or ignorance) that practicing radiologists manifest about the radiation burden CT is imposing on the public. In my conversations with residents and staff at the university hospital I taught at for many years, I am able to summon only grudging acceptance of the realities of adverse biological effects of what has become a nearly reflex use of CT both in the ER and in the rest of the practice".

Radiation Risk From CT Scans by Gary Moller

Xray Safety Semelka

Moral of the story:
Some health professionals can be very slow to change their ways, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. So, be prepared stick up for yourself when it comes to looking after your own health and that of your family.

Read my other articles about this topic.

Breast thermograms are now available in New Zealand

In my earlier article about breast cancer which is near epidemic in the developed world, I explained the short-comings of xray mammograms for "preventing" breast cancer and for early detection. http://blog.garymoller.com/2012/04/why-women-should-avoid-mammograms.html  The safe breast screening technology; Breast Thermography, is now available in New Zealand.  Several of my female clients have already availed themselves of this service with interesting findings! All women should avail themselves of this safe and non-invasive screening tool.   Have you ever wondered what comes before the breast lump and before the cancer cells?   Inflammation:  A breast thermogram will pick up the "hot spots" of beast tissue inflammation and will do so at the earliest possible time in the process, giving the woman the opportunity and the time to take positive counter-measures that may include dietary changes, nutrition supplementation (Such as iodine) and breast effleurage massage to promote lymphatic drainage. ___________________________________ • EARLY SIGNS THAT A BREAST CANCER MAY BE DEVELOPINGAngiogenesis? Angiogenesis, or new blood vessel formation, is necessary to sustain the growth of a tumor. Breast thermography may be the first signal that such a possibility is developing. • INDIVIDUALIZED BREAST CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT Are you personally at greater risk for breast cancer? Women with a family history are definitely at greater risk, but 75% of women who get breast cancer have no family history of the disease. Regardless of your family history, if a thermogram is abnormal you run a future risk of breast cancer that is 10 times higher than a first order family history of the disease. Thermography has the ability to provide women with a future risk assessment. If discovered, certain thermographic risk markers can warn a woman that she needs to work closely with her doctor with regular checkups to monitor her breast health. • A POSSIBLE ROLE IN BREAST CANCER PREVENTION Thermal signs of hormone effects?  Since the single greatest risk factor for the development of breast cancer is lifetime exposure to estrogen, normalizing the balance of the hormones in the breast may be an important step in prevention. Certain thermographic signs may suggest the effects of hormones in the breasts. This may be the first marker that alerts your doctor to this possibility. Your doctor will first need to run further tests to confirm this. If these tests are positive, your doctor may use these tests to monitor your care. • IMAGING FOR YOUNGER WOMEN Do you know that approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women under 45? This is the most common cancer in women in this age group. Breast cancers in younger women are usually more aggressive and have poorer survival rates. Breast thermography offers younger women a valuable imaging tool that they can add to their regular breast health check-ups beginning with baseline imaging at age 20.

Source of text:  http://www.breastthermography.com/ 
_____________________________________
Thermography is now available in New Zealand, although not funded by Government (It should be!).

"Hi Gary,

 

Your clients can make their own booking online at www.ezybook.co.nz (enter Clinical Thermography into the search box and follow the prompts. "

I have reproduced their booking system below for your convenience (Gary)

Breast Thermography - Taking Control of Your Breast Health Breast thermography is a valuable tool for prediciting breast cancer risk and monitoring changes to breast health. This wonderful service is now available to New Zealand women through Clinical Thermography at many locations. Women who want to take a proactive approach to their breast health find great value in the additional information provided by thermography. Clinic locations Auckland - Milford  Milford Health Clinic 50 East Coast Road Milford North Shore 0620 Phone: (09) 443 4389 Tauranga 1416A Cameron Rd Greerton Tauranga  Bay of Plenty 3112 Phone: (07) 543 0832 Wellington (Travelling clinic) Airport Motor Lodge Cnr Broadway &Hobart St Mirimar Wellington Phone Tauranga Clinic (07) 543 0832 NEXT CLINIC: 23rd - 27th APRIL 2012 Hawke's Bay (Travelling Clinic) Omahu Motor Lodge 327 Omahu Rd Hastings Phone Tauranga Clinic (07) 543 0832 NEXT CLINIC: 12 MAR - 16 MAR 2012 Christchurch The Helios Medical Centre  275 Fifield Terrace Waltham Christchurch Hamilton (Travelling Clinic) As Well As Health & Wellness Centre 76 Te Aroha St Hamilton Phone Tauranga Clinic (07) 543 0832 NEXT CLINIC: 4TH APRIL 2012 To email us, click on "contact us" above About Breast Thermography Breast Thermography Enables You To: - Establish your baseline thermal pattern  - Monitor any changes in these patterns over time  - Assess diet, lifestyle and other interventions  Breast Thermography is: - Suitable for women of all ages  - Contact-free  - Painless  - Radiation-free  - 100% safe  - FDA approved More www.clinicalthermography.co.nz book at Auckland Clinic Thermography appointment (45 mins) book at Titirangi Clinic Thermography appointment (45 mins) book at Tauranga Clinic Thermography appointment (45 mins) book at Hamilton Clinic Thermography appointment (45 mins) book at Wellington Clinic Thermography appointment (45 mins) book at Hawke's Bay Clinic Thermography appointment (45 mins) book at Christchurch Clinic Thermography appointm

_______________________________________

About this website

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation.  Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.