And 4
In yesterday’s e-Alert – “Easy as 123” – I told you there were three primary myths about mammograms. But today I’ll add one more:
Myth 4: Mammography provides the most dependable method of breast cancer screening.
Fact: There are several methods of breast cancer screening that are as dependable or more dependable than mammography.
Human touch
One of the most effective tools in breast cancer screening is available to all women, with no danger and at no cost: breast self-examination (BSE). But BSE works best when women are appropriately trained in the procedure, and then follow-up with annual breast exams from their physicians.
In a 2000 University of Toronto study, 20,000 women were screened for breast cancer with BSE and annual checkups, and 20,000 were screened with BSE and mammograms. After more than a decade, the BSE and annual exam group reported 610 cases of invasive breast cancer, and 105 deaths. In the BSE and mammogram group there were 622 cases of invasive breast cancer, and 107 deaths.
Without question, the first and most effective line of defense begins at home with a monthly BSE. Using BSE and any of the three alternative screening methods I’ll tell you about today, there’s no reason why any woman should be subjected to the painful discomfort and dangers of mammography.
Taking the temperature
Digital infrared imaging (DII) – also called thermography – can catch cancer cells at work long before a tumor even forms. This simple, non-invasive procedure uses infrared cameras to detect patterns of temperature change in tissue. But unlike mammography, thermography doesn’t require painful compression of the breast, and there’s no exposure to harmful doses of radiation.
Thermography can’t pinpoint the exact location of cancerous cells, or determine if a mass is present, so additional procedures (such as MRI or ultrasound) are still necessary to determine if a tumor has already formed. But follow-up procedures (including mammograms) often show nothing because the cancer may still be too small to be detected with other techniques.
Thermography results that indicate an abnormal infrared image but no detectable mass provide women with a valuable opportunity to begin boosting their immune systems’ cancer-fighting power with dietary changes and supplements, and to continue with a regular schedule of BSE, physician exams, and regular thermographic check ups.
Although thermography has been around since the 1970s, it still isn’t widely used, and unfortunately many insurance programs still don’t cover it. Screenings typically cost between $150 and $175 U.S. To find a qualified thermography provider in your area, visit the International Academy of Clinical Thermology website at iact-org.org
New kid on the block
Many types of cancer (including breast cancer) trigger the production of a peptide called malignin. When the body detects malignan, it launches an immune response of anti-malignan antibody. Fortunately, a blood test has been developed – the anti-malignan antibody in serum test (AMAS) – that can reveal the presence of the antibody. Clinical studies have shown that the AMAS test is up to 95 percent accurate on the first reading, and up to 99 percent accurate after two readings.
With such high accuracy rates, a negative AMAS reading would make thermography and other screening methods unnecessary (although monthly BSEs and annual check ups are still strongly encouraged). A positive AMAS reading indicates that there are cancerous cells in your body, but it cannot specify the cancer type or the location, so some sort of follow-up tests would be called for.
Anti-malignan antibody was first discovered in the mid-1980s, and the AMAS test has been available for over a decade. Nevertheless, many doctors are still unaware of it. If your doctor needs information about the AMAS test, ask him to look over the information on the web site: amascancertest.com, or to call 1-800-922-8378 to request literature demonstrating the benefits of AMAS.
On the cutting edge
Of the three alternatives, this one represents the future of cancer screening.
Developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this screening method – like AMAS – requires only a simple blood test. Scientists believe they can detect breast cancer by measuring a particular type of nuclear matrix protein (NMP) in the bloodstream.
NMPs aid in healthy cell reproduction by helping form the skeleton of nuclei in new cells. Abnormalities in the skeleton can indicate that a cell is cancerous. The theory behind this screening is that abnormal levels of NMPs in the bloodstream can reveal that cancer is present in the body. Furthermore, different types of cells (kidney cells, lung cells, etc.) use different types of NMP for reproduction. So if you can identify what kind of NMP aids reproduction of breast cells, for example, you can test for breast cancer simply by measuring the amount of breast-specific NMP in the bloodstream.
One early, small-scale test of the breast-specific NMP, or NMP66, produced near-perfect results. Among the 78 women in the study, NMP66 was found in all 45 women who had been diagnosed with invasive cancer, and four out of the five women who had noninvasive cancer. It wasn’t found in any of the 29 subjects who were cancer-free.
Further tests of this cutting-edge screening method are now underway, and when these studies are published, we’ll report the results in the e-Alert and the HSI Members Alert.
Help get the word out
As we’ve seen in yesterday’s and today’s e-Alerts, mammography is clearly neither the safest nor the most effective method to screen for breast cancer.
But most conventional doctors think like mine does: “This is what we do, so just do it.” If you have a friend or family member whose doctor has suggested a mammogram, I hope you’ll use the link below to share this e-Alert with them. The tunnel-vision focus of the medical establishment will continue to see what it wants to see. Fortunately, we’re free to look elsewhere to find better alternatives.
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute
Sources:
“Mammography Does Not Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality When Added to Careful Breast Examination for Women Aged 50-59 Years,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2000; 92(18); 1,455, jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org
“Cochrane Review on Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography” The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1340-1342, thelancet.com
“Screening Mammography – an Overview Revisited” The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1284-1285, thelancet.com
“Is Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography Justifiable?” The Lancet, 2000; 355: 129-134, thelancet.com
“The Cruel and Costly Hoax of Breast Cancer Screening: Protect Yourself from Mainstream Mammography Mania” William Campbell Douglass, M.D., Real Health, January 2002, realhealthnews.com
“Medicine Mum on MammographyDo the Math” Alternative Medicine, 10/23/00, alternativemedicine.com
