Dr. Ruth Heidrich

Known as the ‘other Dr Ruth‘, Ruth Heidrich is a six-time Ironman Triathlon

finisher, has held age-group records in distances from 100-metre dashes to

ultramarathons, pentathlons, and triathlons. She has completed 67 marathons

including Boston, New York, Moscow, Honolulu, has held three world fitness

records at the famed Cooper Clinic in Dallas, Texas, named one of the ‘Ten

Fittest Women in North America.’ A graduate of UCLA, she holds a Master’s

degree in Psychology, and a doctorate in Health Education. She has also

lectured in this field at the University of Hawaii, Stanford University, and

Cornell University. Author of Senior Fitness, A Race For Life, The CHEF

Cook/Rawbook, she has an ‘Ask Dr Ruth’ column on her website, www.ruthheidrich.com

Here is her story in her own words.

I was 47 years old and believed I was as healthy as I could possibly be!

Talk about being positive, I thought I had it all! My career was taking off, my

kids were successfully launched, and I loved all the travel that my job provided.

I’d studied nutrition in college and ate what I was told was a very healthy diet,

lots of chicken and fish and low-fat dairy. I was in the best physical shape of my

life except for a little arthritis which I was told everybody gets by the time

they’re 30. I’d starting daily running at the age of 33 and found I loved it! So, at

this time, I’d been a runner for 14 years and had even run a bunch of

marathons.

What I didn’t know was that my life was about to be dumped upside

down. While in the shower that morning, I found a lump in my breast. I got

right in to see a doctor, but he just remarked, ‘Oh, you’re too young for breast

cancer.’ He did, however, order a mammogram, ‘just to be sure’, he said. The

results were negative—a false negative as it turned out—because of my dense

breasts, it didn’t pick up any abnormality. I was told to come back for yearly

checks. The next year, the same result. The third year, however, the lump was

now golf-ball sized and very visible! The doctor looked shocked and ordered an

immediate biopsy. The diagnosis: infiltrating ductal cancer, an invasive cancer

that had already spread, indicated by ‘hot spots’ in my bones, a lung tumour,

and elevated liver enzymes!

I was so stunned and disbelieving that I got second, third and even fourth

opinions. Each doctor confirmed the findings, and as for my prognosis, none

could tell me whether I had three months, three years or what, just that it was

‘not good.’ They all recommended the standard chemo., radiation and

tamoxifen. I could not believe my body betrayed me in such a manner! I was

doing everything I was told were all the right things to be healthy.

I was slated for chemotherapy but dreaded going down that path—but

terrified not to. I started searching for alternatives, any kind of help, anything—

I did not want to die! That was when I found a tiny three-line newspaper item,

‘Wanted, women with breast cancer to participate in cancer/diet research

study.’ I was sure that my ‘healthy’ diet (and I’d been told by the oncologist

that my diet had nothing to do with my breast cancer), so I thought this would

help prove it one way or the other. I ran to the phone and was put right through

to Dr John McDougall. I was so shocked to get him in person that I was

sputtering, trying to tell him that I’d just been diagnosed with breast cancer. He

said, ‘Get your medical records and come down to my office right away.’

After I got there, he was looking over my lab results. ‘Hmmm,’ he said.

‘What now?’ I was thinking. Another shock when he said, ‘You know, with

cholesterol of 236, you are at as high a risk of dying of a heart attack as you are

the cancer.’

I was literally stunned by the deception of my body and what was

happening—cancer, arthritis, and, now, heart disease? I was a marathoner, for

goodness sake! These things don’t happen to people like me! What is going on?

Dr McDougall said, ‘Don’t worry, all of this can be reversed and avoided.

Change your diet, and you’ll lower your cholesterol, lower your risk of heart

disease, and reverse the cancer. And, in order to show that it’s the diet that’s

responsible for these changes, you must not have any chemo. or radiation.’ Wait

a minute, I thought, undergo chemo. and radiation or change my diet? If Dr

McDougall is right, and I saw the research that supported his claim, I’d be crazy

not to go with the diet! ‘OK, what do I do?’ Dr McDougall said: ‘It’s very

simple—eliminate all animal foods and oils from your diet. Your diet will

consist of plant foods: fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes.’

No ‘transitioning’ for me—in less than two hours, I was vegan! I found the

diet amazingly easy to follow. I already loved brown rice, whole grain breads

and oatmeal; I just had to replace the chicken, fish and dairy with vegetables

and fruit, and throw out all the oils.

My body responded immediately. The next morning I discovered I’d been

constipated all my life but never knew it. I now know what ‘normal’ is, thank

goodness!

When I returned to the oncologist, I told him what I was doing. He

responded by saying that diet had nothing to do with my getting breast cancer

and I couldn’t possibly get enough protein, calcium, and essential fatty acids. I

made a mental note to check that out with Dr McDougall. In addition to the hot

spots in my bones, I was having serious bone pain that medication could not

relieve. A month later, those hot spots had significantly receded, and within

three months, they were gone, as was the bone pain. The chest X-rays, however,

to this day, still show an encapsulated tumour in my left lung. It hasn’t grown

in 29 years, and my liver enzymes are now normal.

The oncologist had no explanation for the findings and told me further

that my new diet couldn’t have any effect on the cancer, and that I was taking a

risk in continuing to refuse chemo., radiation, and tamoxifen. Back to Dr

McDougall I went! I was reassured when he again showed me the dismal

results of chemo. and radiation plus data indicating I’d get plenty of all the

needed nutrients.

It was during all this turmoil that I happened to see the Ironman Triathlon

on TV. I was awe-struck and thought, ‘I’ve got to do that!’ I saw the 2.4-mile

swim, the 112-mile bike, and then the 26-mile marathon. I knew I could handle

the marathon and thought just adding swimming and biking would be a piece

of cake! Then it hit me, I’ve got cancer and, besides, looking at all the young

bodies, at 47 I’m way too old to do this. I then realized what an opportunity I

was being given: diet does affect cancer and I can show people that you can do

one of the toughest races in the world on a vegan diet and, at a relatively

advanced age to boot! I got excited at the possibilities and joined two running

clubs, got a swim coach, took a bicycle repair course, and was obsessed with

training in all three sports. Training daily, I could see amazing progress in my

speed and endurance. What’s more, I was enjoying my workouts, gaining

confidence that I could attain one of the most ambitious goals I’d ever set for

myself—to be an ‘Ironman’!

I did have to dig deep, however, as I was challenged like I’d never been

before! Crossing that finish line of my first Ironman, I experienced indescribable

feelings—a mix of joy, empowerment, exhilaration, and total fatigue! I could

not have gone another step!

Since my diagnosis in 1982, I have completed the Ironman six times, run

67 marathons, have won nearly 1,000 gold medals including eight gold medals

in the Senior Olympics, won the title of ‘One of the Ten Fittest Women in North

America,’ and have a fitness age of 32, although chronologically, I am 76.

Because of the history of osteoporosis on both sides of my family, I tracked

my bone density and found significant increases with each test. I was obviously

getting enough calcium on this diet. I was also very pleasantly surprised to

discover that my arthritis disappeared and I could stop taking Naprosyn,

(Aleve, or naproxen), the drug prescribed for my arthritis that I was told I

would need to take the rest of my life. My joints today not only are not arthritic,

but I actually do my own little daily triathlon as part of my regular training!

How about that? A 76-year-old triathlete! I never thought my life could take

such a positive turn and am thankful that I found out, in time, the dramatic

impact diet has on our health!

Regarding the rationale for avoiding any kind of oil, the healthiest foods

are whole foods with little or no refinement or processing. Taking a whole food

like corn, olives, etc. and extracting and concentrating the natural oils from

them, represent the extreme in processing, leaving 100 per cent calories from fat

and is certainly not helping in the battle of epidemic obesity in this country. As

for the touted omega 3s in fish oils, it’s far better to get them from the source.

Fish do not make omega 3s; they get them from the sea greens, and we can do

the same, either from sea greens or any of the many other sources such as leafy

greens, walnuts, and flax seeds.

We also know that a low-fat (ten per cent calories from fat) diet lowers our

risk of heart disease, most cancers but especially breast cancer, stroke, diabetes,

and many other of the common Western afflictions. The substantiating citations

for all this is in my book, Senior Fitness.

Here’s what I now eat.

Breakfast

Served in a large bowl, lots of greens for the base: mixed organic greens, 1

stalk kale, 10 or so sprigs of parsley or cilantro, half a mango, 1 large banana,

and half dozen large, seeded globe grapes. Top off with 1 rounded tablespoon

of B12-fortified nutritional yeast, and 1–2 tablespoons of blackstrap molasses.

Because I eat this after my daily workout, this is served late and I eat no

midday meal.

Supper

Lots more greens for the base: mixed organic greens, 3–4 broccoli florettes, 1

stalk of kale, 1 stalk of celery, a quarter head of green or red cabbage, 1 large

carrot, half a red (or orange, green, or yellow) bell pepper, half a large field

tomato, half a sliced yam or sweet potato, raw. On top of this, add to taste,

prepared salsa (mild, medium or hot), 1 tablespoon of regular mustard, 1

tablespoon of flax seed, freshly ground, a general sprinkle of curry powder,

and lots of freshly ground black pepper.

Dessert

A base of blueberries (fresh or frozen, depending on availability and

season)—usually 1 cup, plus about 8–9 prunes, topped with a handful of

walnuts, and a liberal sprinkle of ground cinnamon.

Snacks

For those times when the hunger pangs strike, I eat carrot or celery sticks,

grapes, dates, and in the evening, plain air-popped popcorn.

You’ll see that my diet consists mainly of raw foods. Raw is better than cooking

as cooking does reduce the vitamin content of the food but this is not absolutely

essential—the essential thing is to cut out the oils and to go to a plant based

diet. For me it is just more convenient to eat the foods raw—and actually I

prefer it.

From"25 Survivor Stories", a free e-book , courtesy of Jonathan Chamberlain  Download it here 

http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cancersurvivors1.pdf

DR. RUTH: A LIVING LEGEND

At 79 years young, Ruth Heidrich, Ph.D., is a seasoned raw vegan Ironman (or as she likes to say, “IronLADY”) Triathlete. She is the winner of more than 900 trophies, 6 Ironman Triathlons, 8 Gold Medals in the U.S.Senior Olympics, and 67 marathons including Boston, New York, & Moscow.  Named One of the Ten Fittest Women in North America, she is also a breast cancer survivor and author of A Race for Life,Senior Fitness, The CHEF Cook/Rawbook, and her most recent book, Lifelong Running: How to Overcome the 11 Myths of Running & Live a Healthier Life.

乳腺癌的诱因: Mammograms

Thermography: The Safer, More Effective Alternative (Hyperlink)

Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/26/mammograms.aspx?

February 26, 2014 | 261,167 views

By Dr. Mercola

Earlier this year, one of the largest and longest studies of mammography to date -- involving 90,000 women followed for 25 years-- found that mammograms have no impact on breast cancer mortality.1

Over the course of the study, the death rate from breast cancer was virtually identical between those who received an annual mammogram and those who did not, while 22 percent of screen-detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, leading to unnecessary treatment. The researchers concluded "the data suggest that the value of mammography screening should be reassessed."2

A Cochrane Collaboration review also found no evidence that mammography screening has an effect on overall mortality, which, taken together, seriously calls into question whether mammography screening really benefits women.3

Public health agencies, however, have been slow to update their recommendations. The American Cancer Society recommends annual mammograms for average-risk women starting at the age of 40, while the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammograms every other year starting at age 50.

The conflicting recommendations send women mixed messages on whether screening is helpful or harmful, yet, earlier this year the Swiss Medical Board made a clear-cut recommendation: no more systematic mammography.

Why Did the Swiss Medical Board Do Away with Routine Mammograms?

After a year of reviewing the available evidence and its implications, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, noted they became "increasingly concerned" about what they were finding. The "evidence" simply did not back up the global consensus of other experts in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.

On the contrary, mammography appeared to be preventing only one death for every 1,000 women screened, while causing harm to many more. Their thorough review left them no choice but to recommend that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced, and that a time limit should be placed on existing programs.

In their report, made public in February 2014,4 the Swiss Medical Board also advised that the quality of mammography screening should be evaluated and women should be informed, in a "clear and balanced" way, about the benefits and harms of screening.

Unfortunately, many women are still unaware that the science backing the health benefits of mammograms is sorely lacking. Instead of being told the truth, women are guilt-tripped into thinking that skipping their yearly mammogram is the height of medical irresponsibility. It can be hard to stand your ground against such tactics.

When it comes to cancer prevention, however, many doctors are just as confused and manipulated as the average person on the street because of the relentless industry and media propaganda that downplays or ignores research that dramatically contradicts their profit-based agenda.

Five Facts About Mammograms That Every Woman Should Know

Before your next (or first) mammogram, you may be interested to know the following:

1. Mammograms May Offer Less Benefit Than You Think:

In one survey, most women said they believed mammography reduced the risk of breast cancer deaths by at least half and prevented at least 80 deaths per 1,000 women screened.5 In reality, mammography may, at best, offer a relative risk reduction of 20 percent and prevent in absolute terms only one breast-cancer death per 1,000 women.

2. Mammography May Increase the Risk of Breast Cancer in Women with a BRCA 1/2 Mutation:

Results published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) show that women carrying a specific gene mutation called BRCA1/2 (which is linked to breast cancer) are particularly vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer.6

Women carrying this mutation who were exposed to diagnostic radiation (which includes mammograms) before the age of 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer, compared to those who did not have the mutated gene. They also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive, meaning the greater the dose, the higher the risk of cancer developing.

3. False Positives are Common (and Dangerous)

In the US, the risk of having a false-positive test over 10 mammograms is a concerning 58 percent to 77 percent!7, 8 When a woman is told she may have breast cancer, it causes considerable anxiety and psychological distress. Meanwhile, you will be subjected to more testing, such as biopsy or surgery, which carry their own set of risks, unnecessarily.

4. Mammograms May Not Work if You Have Dense Breasts

Up to 50 percent of women have dense breast tissue, which makes mammograms very difficult to decipher. Dense breast tissue and cancer both appear white on an X-ray, making it nearly impossible for a radiologist to detect cancer in these women. It's like trying to find a snowflake in a blizzard.

Breast density laws have been passed in California, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and Texas, making it mandatory for radiologists to inform their patients who have dense breast tissue that mammograms are basically useless for them. A law is now being considered at a federal level as well.

5. There are Other Screening Options

There are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options.  Remember, only a biopsy can confirm cancer.  Screening tools only aid in the process of showing concern.  

Your Waist Size Is Linked to Your Breast Cancer Risk

It's important to remember that getting a mammogram, if you choose to, is notthe same as prevention. In order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on actual prevention and not just early detection, and one way to do this is by maintaining a healthy weight, and, particularly, a healthy waist size.

Researchers analyzed data from 93,000 mostly overweight post-menopausal women. This included data such as their general health, cancer status, and skirt size (which was used as a gauge of waist size). The latter – skirt size – was strongly linked to breast cancer risk.9 As TIME reported:10

"An increase in skirt size was the single most predictive measure of breast cancer risk, the study concluded. When women went up a single skirt size over a 10-year span between their mid-20s and mid-60s, they were shown to have a 33% greater risk of developing breast cancer after menopause. Buying two skirt sizes up during that same period was linked to a 77% increased risk."

Clothing sizes can be quite ambiguous, of course, with a size 8 in one brand equal to another's size 10. Yet, the premise that increasing waist size might increase cancer risk is sound. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and obese women are thought to be up to 60 percent more likely to develop cancer than those of normal weight. 

The reason for this increased risk is because many breast cancers are fueled by estrogen, a hormone produced in your fat tissue. So the more body fat you have, the more estrogen you're likely to produce. However, excess fat around your mid-section may be particularly dangerous.

Why Your Waist-to-Hip Ratio Matters

If you have a high waist-to-hip ratio, i.e. you carry more fat around your waist than on your hips, you may be at an increased risk for certain chronic conditions. Certain body compositions do tend to increase your risk of chronic disease, and carrying extra inches around your midsection has been repeatedly shown to increase cardiovascular health risks. Your waist size is also a powerful indicator of insulin sensitivity, as studies clearly show that measuring your waist size is one of the most powerful ways to predict your risk for diabetes, and this could also play a role in cancer as well.

To calculate your waist-to-hip ratio, measure the circumference of your hips at the widest part, across your buttocks, and your waist at the smallest circumference of your natural waist, just above your belly button. Then divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement to get the ratio. (The University of Maryland offers an online waist-to-hip ratio calculator11 you can use.) To determine your waist-to-hip ratio, get a tape measure and record your waist and hip circumference. Then divide your waist circumference by your hip circumference. For a more thorough demonstration, please review the video below.

Waist to Hip Ratio	Men	Women
Ideal	0.8	0.7
Low Risk	<0.95	<0.8
Moderate Risk	0.96-0.99	>0.81 - 0.84
High Risk	>1.0	>0.85

The Sugar Connection

Obesity, including abdominal obesity, is driving up rates of breast cancer in many developed countries. And what is driving up rates of obesity? Many factors, actually, but sugar certainly plays a primary role. There is no shortage of research linking excessive sugar consumption with obesity, and the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages appears to have a particularly strong link. It was more than five years ago when UCLA researchers found that adults who drank at least one sugar-sweetened beverage a day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese.12 Even those who only drank sodaoccasionally had a 15 percent greater risk.

This is far more than simply an issue of consuming "empty calories," as sugary drinks, soda, and even fresh-squeezed fruit juice contain fructose, which has been identified as one of the primary culprits in the meteoric rise of obesity and related health problems—in large part due to its ability to turn on your "fat switch." Alarmingly, research presented at the American Heart Association's Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2013 Scientific Sessions suggested sugary beverages are to blame for about 183,000 deaths worldwide each year, including 133,000 diabetes deaths, 44,000 heart disease deaths, and 6,000 cancer deaths.

About 77 percent of food items in US grocery stores contain added sugar. So it's no wonder that, while the American Heart Association recommends a daily sugar limit of six teaspoons for women and nine for men, the average American consumes more like 22. If health agencies really wanted to make a dent in breast cancer, they would focus on sharing the truth about sugar (and grains), and their role in obesity and cancer. Unfortunately, breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, even if it means ignoring (or downplaying) the truth.

Avoiding Sugar and Other Top Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

I believe the vast majority of all cancers, including breast cancer, could be prevented by strictly applying basic, commonsense healthy lifestyle strategies, such as the ones below. No available screening method, whether mammography or otherwise, is going to lower your risk of breast cancer… but the tips that follow will:

In addition to exercise, try to limit your sitting time to three hours a day while taking 10,000 daily steps during your non-exercise hours.

• Avoid sugar, especially fructose, and processed foods. All forms of sugar are detrimental to your health in general and tend to promote cancer. Refined fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible. This automatically means avoiding processed foods, as most are loaded with fructose.

• Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should probably be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. Ideally, your levels should reach this point by exposure to the sun or a tanning bed, with oral vitamin D used as a last resort and balanced by other nutrients likevitamin K2 and magnesium.

• Limit your protein. Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active cancer growth is accelerated. One way to quiet this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight. For most people, this ranges between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day, which is typically about 2/3 to half of what they are currently eating. You can eat 25% more if you are exercising or pregnant.

• Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and drives the phenotype associated with cancer.

• Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs to mostly fiber vegetables. Also make sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.

• Exercise regularly. One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die in the way nature intended. Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor. This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.

• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen, creating a vicious self-perpetuating cycle.

• Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. This is a simple way to get more cancer-fighting nutrients into your diet. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.

• Get plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.

• Curcumin. This is the main active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. It actually has the most evidence-based literature supporting its use against cancer of any nutrient, including vitamin D.13 For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.14 It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided severalabsorption tips here. Newer preparations have also started to emerge, offering better absorption. For best results, you'll want to use a sustained-release preparation.

• Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.

• Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets may increase your cancer risk.

• Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Many forms of breast cancer are estrogen-fueled, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.) If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.

• Avoid BPA, phthalates, and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.

• Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein, author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells. For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein, as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are far too high.

• Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame-broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, or fried—has been found to increase cancer risk as well.

Thermography: A Perfect Alternative to Mammograms?

HEALTHY LIVINGby Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist

Thermography is gaining ground as a valid alternative to mammograms given that more women are seeking non-radiation alternatives for identification of breast anomalies amid a very x-ray happy medical community that seems unconcerned with long term exposure risk. But, are the benefits of thermography for real?

I myself have never had a mammogram, following in the footsteps of my wise 81 year old mother who once said, “Why look for breast cancer with a test that can actually cause breast cancer?”

If only our conventional medical community made decisions using this much common sense!

 

By some estimates, up to 20% of all breast cancers diagnosed in the United States annually are actually caused by the cumulative radiation effects of mammograms which makes the recommendation for annual or semi-annual mammograms after age 40 absolutely ludicrous!

If you don’t have breast cancer when you start screening with mammograms, you probably will years later after all that accumulating radiation exposure over that long period of time!

Another major problem with mammograms is the compression factor which serves to spread any breast cancer that may be present. This from the Cancer Prevention Coalition:

As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle “cancerous breasts with care– for fear of accidentally disseminating cells” and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers.

So, what to do if you need to safely screen for breast cancer?

Thermography, or Medical Infrared Imaging, has been heralded by many in the alternative health community as a safe alternative to mammograms.  Indeed, thermography is a very safe and effective breast screening technology as it very accurately identifies the vascular changes associated with breast cancer even well in advance of when a mammogram would identify a problem.

In addition, thermography is a much better choice than mammograms for women who are on hormone replacement, nursing or have fibrocystic, large, dense, or enhanced breasts as there is much difficulty in reading mammograms accurately in these situations.  Any type of breast differences do not cause any interpretation difficulties in thermography.

Here’s what Christiane Northrup MD, a fan of thermography, has to say:

“The most promising aspect of thermography is its ability to spot anomalies years before mammography.”

“Today, women are encouraged to get a mammogram, so they can find their breast cancer as early as possible. With thermography as your regular screening tool, it’s likely that you would have the opportunity to make adjustments to your diet, beliefs, and lifestyle to transform your cells before they became cancerous. Talk about true prevention.”

Before you run to the phone and schedule your thermogram, however, there are a few more things you need to know.

Time for the reality check.

Thermography Pitfalls You Need to Know About

While thermography is definitely a helpful and nontoxic approach to detecting breast cancer at any stage, it is not the perfect alternative to mammograms as it is frequently portrayed.

First of all, thermography is rarely covered by medical insurance.  As a result, the typical fee of several hundred dollars for the initial screen with a required followup screen costing an additional one or two hundred dollars within 3-6 months is completely out of pocket for the vast majority of patients. A single thermogram each year after the initial 2 screenings is recommended – another expense.  For many women, this large personal expense is simply out of the question especially in the current economic environment.

Even in my home state of Florida where the law stipulates that all medical insurance providers provide policyholders with a free mammogram every 2 years for women aged 40-50 and an annual mammogram for women over 50 with no deductible or co-pay required, women still must pay out of pocket as no substitution of a thermogram for a mammogram is permitted.

Thermogram? You Might Be Forced to Have a Mammogram Anyway

A second very real problem with going the thermography route is that you frequently are pressured into getting a mammogram anyway.  All that money out of pocket and you still end up getting doused with radiation!

The reason is that thermography is able to detect breast anomalies that are noncancerous and not in any way threatening to health, so women frequently end up at the gynecologist after having a thermogram which identified anything that looked remotely suspicious even something as simple and common as a clogged milk duct.

Once at the gynecologist, women are shocked to learn that a mammogram is almost always required and that trying to substitute a simple breast ultrasound to examine the anomaly identified by thermography is not allowed –unless you have a mammogram first!

Tricky, tricky!  Ah, those mammograms are such a nice moneymaker for GYNs; you didn’t actually think they would let you bypass it so easily did you?

A large out of pocket expense for a thermogram only to end up being pressured or even forced to have a mammogram is a source of extreme frustration for women trying to avoid mammograms in the first place.

Are Thermograms Helpful At All?

Given these very real pitfalls, does it make sense for women to use thermography at all?  In my opinion, yes, thermograms are an extremely beneficial test.

However, a woman needs to go down that road with her eyes completely open knowing that her battle to forgo mammograms is not necessarily over!

Be sure to have a discussion with your chosen thermographer before the appointment to be sure that he/she has a way for you to get only a breast ultrasound and not a mammogram if a suspicious area is detected.

In my local area, there are thermographers that can provide this service, and others that cannot.  Be sure to ask!

My Thermography Adventure

Here’s what happened to me.  I got a routine thermogram which discovered a suspicious area which turned out to only be a clogged milk duct (my daughter was weaning at that time) but since we didn’t know what it was when the thermography was done, I was referred for a simple breast ultrasound.

I then discovered to my dismay that no one in town would give me just a breast ultrasound without me first having a mammogram!

Fortunately, coming from a medical family, I was able to circumvent the mammogram madness and get a script for just a breast ultrasound.   Even then, the battle wasn’t yet over! When I went in for my breast ultrasound, I was read the riot act about forgoing the mammogram by the attending physician. This, after she admitted that a mammogram was not even an appropriate test for me given that I have what’s called “dense breast tissue”!

She also denied that each mammogram (4 films per breast) exposes a woman to approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) of exposure – about 1000 times more than a chest x-ray even though this is a clearly documented fact by the Institute of Medicine (source).

Clueless, misinformed docs.  They are everywhere my friends!

So use thermography – it is a fantastic diagnostic tool that is clearly superior to mammograms, but be sure to have your ducks in a row about what you will do if anything suspicious is found before you pay all that money out of pocket!

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist