Is there is a Better Way to Detect Breast Cancer?
by Darrell Stoddard, copyright 2000
It may interest those concerned with breast cancer
to know that there is another method for detecting breast cancer (not thermography)
that is as good or better than mammography.
In a controlled blind study of 700 high risk patients performed 14 years ago
by the University of Miami School of Medicine, it was found that scanning
the breast with infrared light and an infrared camera was at least or more
sensitive and specific than mammography ("Infrared Light Scanning of the
Breast" The American Surgeon, March 1986, Vol. 52, No. 3).
Infrared breast cancer detection does not subject the patient to ionizing
radiation (X-rays). In a new (1999) 799 page study, John Gofman, M.D.,
Ph.D., whose medical and scientific credentials fill five pages, states "Between
83 percent and 90 percent of all breast cancer can be attributed to medical
radiation." see: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/.
Because the infrared scanning method to detect breast cancer does not use
X-rays, it could be repeated every month in high risk women. Mammography
can not be done that often because of the radiation. Even though the
advocates of mammography do not like to admit it, many women developed breast
cancer that grew fast enough between mammograms to require a mastectomy.
All of the cancers found by examination and by mammography in the 700 women
were found by Infrared light scanning of the breast. The I.L.S. method also
detected three cancers that were missed by mammography. This was not statistically
significant but very significant for those three women.
Infrared scanning to detect breast cancer is not widely available. Why then
is this safe and better method of detecting breast cancer not being utilized?
It is human nature to resist change. The wheels turn ponderously slow.
Many new medical technologies are not accepted until a whole generation
of doctors (who are trained one way) are replaced by new doctors with different
training. There is also the element of "protecting ones turf."
Oncologists and Radiologists, who are the cancer experts, will not easily
yield their domain to an instrument that uses no radiation (which could
be used by doctors with different medical training). Doctors who are
not radiologists also do not want the liability of mis-diagnosing something
that might turn out to be malignant. Last, it is a question of medical
economics - expensive mammography instruments must be
paid for even though infrared breast scanning systems cost less. For
these reasons women are not getting what is best for them.
I called on a doctor reputed to be one of the leading breast cancer experts
in the United States. When I told him there may be a better way to
detect breast cancer than mammography, he replied, "That's bull shit!"
I showed him a copy of the Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast study and
told him it was a blind study of 700 high risk women done in a U.S. medical
school and published in an AMA Journal. He then repeated, "It's still
bull shit," and made it clear that this was the end of the conversation.
So much for new cancer discoveries being accepted.
Even though there is a better way to detect breast cancer, it is infinitely
more important to prevent the disease than detect it. Thanks to John
Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., (book Preventing
Breast Cancer http://www.ratical.com/radiation
/cnr/pbc/indexT.html) and Singer and Grismaijer, (book Dressed to Kill, The link Between Bra-Wearing
and Breast Cancer), I believe
we now know how to prevent much if not most breast cancer. Like the
infrared study, these discoveries are also being rejected or covered up.
I will send a reprint of the "Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast" cancer
study, and a review of the above books, to anyone who sends three dollars
(for postage and copying) to:
Darrell J. Stoddard, Founder - Pain
266 East 3200 North Provo, UT 84604 U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
Return to Homepage
of the Pain Research Institute