MDITI by HealthQuest

29/10/2023

https://humansbefree.com/2017/05/switzerland-completely-abolished-mammography-screenings-heres-why-you-should-probably-never-get-one.html

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was requested to prepare a review of mammography screening.The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a....

29/10/2023

https://worldtruth.tv/mammograms-a-medical-hoax-over-one-million-american-women-maimed-by-unnecessary-treatment-for-cancer-they-never-had/?amp=1

Mammography is a cruel medical hoax. The primary purpose of mammography is not to 'save' women from cancer, but to recruit women into false positives that scare them into expensive, toxic treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. The 'dirty little secret' of the cancer industry is that th...

04/06/2023

Risky NEW mammography guidelines for women over 40
by: Sara Middleton, staff writer | May 27, 2023

A major update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF): women in America should now undergo breast cancer screenings via X-ray mammography technology every two years – starting as young as age 40.

This is a drastically different stance from the one the USPSTF held just seven years ago when they recommended biennial mammography screening for women starting at age 50. What changed? And, if providers and patients heed these recommendations, will younger women be exposed to unnecessary risks associated with recurrent X-ray exposure?

MAJOR revision to breast cancer screening recommendations for American women – and many ask why, knowing the risks associated with mammography technology
According to their website, the USPSTF was established in 1984 as “an independent, volunteer panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine.” Their stated mission is “to improve the health of people nationwide by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, and preventive medications.”

Panel members are providers from a wide range of fields, including “preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics and gynecology, and nursing.”

Here’s why they’re making headlines today:

On May 9, 2023, the Task Force updated their recommendations for breast cancer screening to include biennial mammograms for women starting at age 40. They go on to justify their updated position by referring to “[n]ew and more inclusive science about breast cancer in people younger than 50.”

(Note: in their announcement, the USPSTF note that their recommendations “are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”)

To be clear, there’s no question that breast cancer is a potential concern for many of us and our loved ones. According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1 in 8 American women will get breast cancer at some point in their lifetimes. But do the potential so-called benefits of early mammography screening truly outweigh the potential risks?

Here’s the thing:

Conventionally speaking, mammography screening is thought to reduce the rates of cancer-related deaths. Yet, on the other hand, plenty of research shows a recent decline in breast cancer death rates even in countries where screening is not routine … suggesting that other factors (such as better treatments) and not screening could explain improved survival rates.

There are other things to consider, too:

First, according to the CDC, less than 10 percent of all new breast cancer diagnoses in the United States each year affect women under the age of 45. While certain younger women do have an increased risk of breast cancer based on personal risk factors (including family history and whether they are carriers of certain genes linked to breast cancer), to make a blanket recommendation to all 40- to 45-year-old women, regardless of their personal risk, is questionable.

Second, many conventionally trained physicians will say that a standard mammogram exposes a person to far less ionizing radiation than a typical chest X-ray – about 0.4 millisieverts (mSv), to be exact. Plus, if you check with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they too will say that the amount of radiation exposure associated with a mammogram is ‘very small’ compared to the average person’s annual radiation exposure from other natural background sources (about 3.0 mSv), which includes things like exposure to radon within the home.

But this argument brings up an obvious question…

If women are already exposed to background radiation every year, what are the risks of purposefully exposing themselves to even more with biennial mammograms that may not be necessary? Indeed, if a woman follows the USPSTF recommendations, she will have exposed herself to an additional 2 mSv of radiation (nearly an extra year’s worth) before age 50 that she could have avoided otherwise. How might that affect her health?

By the way, in case you’re wondering, the CDC warns that “additional exposures [to ionizing radiation] can lead to an increase in the possibility of developing cancer later in life.”

Here’s one major risk of mammograms that you haven’t heard about
Third, you might find it interesting to note that “overdiagnosis” is considered one of the chief risks of mammograms. Even the USPSTF has acknowledged this.

Overdiagnosis is different from a false positive, in which a screening test confirms a breast cancer diagnosis even though the woman does not have breast cancer (which is extremely costly and emotionally harmful, of course).

Instead, overdiagnosis (according to the USPSTF) is “the diagnosis and treatment of noninvasive and invasive breast cancer that would otherwise not have become a threat to their health, or even apparent, during their lifetime.” Understandably, overdiagnosis could lead to excessive risk, harm, and emotional and physical stress (not to mention financial strain).

And finally, let’s not ignore the potential financial incentive here. According to a 2021 paper published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, annual costs associated with mammograms bring in a stunning $2.1 billion – and that’s just among American women in their 40s with private health insurance.

We ask again: do the potential benefits of earlier mammography use outweigh the potential risks (of radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, false positives, etc.)? And if only certain younger women who truly have a higher risk of breast cancer based on individual factors would stand to benefit from earlier screening, why is this recommendation being made to all women in this age group?

Explore other alternative ways to address breast cancer risks.
Thermal Imaging has none of the risks of radiation.

HealthQuest® Research 2000, Inc. offers non-invasive and painless breast screening to women of all ages without the use of any compression and offers no risk of being exposed to radiation or pain compared to other breast screening modalities. Our technology is applicable to all breast types: dense breast tissues, pregnant, breastfeeding, fibrocystic, enhanced or augmented, and women on oral hormone medication.
We also offer Full Body Thermal Imaging.

29/08/2019

Research links oral contraceptives to breast cancer in women

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the US has been manipulating data and diminishing the connection between oral contraceptives (OC) and breast cancer for decades. Meaning women have been falsely reassured that OCs are completely safe. But in reality, the hidden risks of OCs have probably even contributed to our current breast cancer epidemic.

Thankfully, emerging findings can help women better understand (and assess) the risks. In fact, a recent study published in the journal Breast Cancer Research shows women who have taken OCs within the past five years have up to a 78 percent increase in risk of developing the deadliest kind of breast cancer.

We'll get into the details of that major study in a moment. But first, let's talk a little bit about the history of OCs and the biology of breast cancer…

The history of birth control

I find that most of the talk about birth control centers around exercising one's "rights." And there's very little discussion about how more and more people in society seek to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood.

Of course, at first, birth control pills were heralded as a solution for "overpopulation" in developing countries—a perceived, existential problem thought up during the 1960s and 1970s by some ivory tower academics.

And when I worked in East and Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 1980s, "population control" programs and funding were flooding in. So much so that we learned to link some of our health research programs to this juggernaut in order to get them funded.

Then, suddenly, OC became a "go to" medical intervention throughout the western, "developed" world for birth control. Doctors also began prescribing them to girls and women with other conditions—such as acne or depression. This practice led to a precipitous decline in birth rates—one so critical that western populations have dropped below "replacement" levels. Meanwhile, populations are still booming in non-western countries where people still want children and don't use OC as commonly.

By the 1980s, concerns began to surface about the health risks to young and childbearing-age women taking "the pill." And the NCI undertook to study such risks.

I was working at the NCI during that same time, studying the biological and dietary risk factors for breast cancer—and other cancers—with a team of scientists who were trained in medicine as well as medical research.

But the political bosses at the NCI decided that statisticians should perform the huge, nationwide studies on birth control pills. (One even made a career out of her statistical manipulations that falsely reassured women about the safety of OCs.) Yet, these statisticians didn't have any real background in human biology or medicine…

The biology of breast cancer

At the same time, the modern breast cancer epidemic was raising its head. Of course, biologists knew that declining birth rates (and increased duration of exposure to estrogen) was the real, major risk factor behind the rapid increase in breast cancer rates.

In fact, even in the mid-1980s, we had known for years that the biggest risk factors for breast cancer are:

Earlier age at menarcheLater age at menopauseHaving fewer or no pregnanciesBecoming pregnant later in lifeNot breastfeeding

As you can see, reproductive hormones are at the heart of all of these risk factors. And it makes sense, as biology shows that increased, lifelong exposure to estrogen increases the risk of breast cancer.

In fact, back in the 1970s at the Senate Hearings on birth control pills, Dr. Roy Hertz warned that estrogens, "are to breast cancer what fertilizer is to the wheat crop." And that analogy really put the problem in terms the midwestern Senator, who led the committee hearings, could relate to. (At the same hearings, Dr. Victor Wynn warned that all human carcinogens are latent. And it can take at least 10 to 20 years to determine the impact.)

Of course, one of the most common and fastest-growing types of breast cancer is typically called estrogen receptor-positive (ER+). It accounts for nearly 80 percent of cases.

Plus, new research shows that estrogen appears to make other tissues, like the brain, more susceptible to breast cancer metastasis. Which may explain why younger women, who have more estrogen, are more likely to suffer brain metastasis if they get breast cancer.

At one point, some scientists thought that switching to progesterone/progestin (the pregnancy hormone) OC would be safer. But about 65 percent of breast cancer tumors contain progesterone receptors and are called progesterone receptor-positive (PR+).

So, clearly, that's not a real solution. Plus, oncologists end up treating women diagnosed with these two types of breast cancer (ER+ and PR+) with Tamoxifen, a drug that blocks hormone receptors. (Essentially, the drug blocks the hormones that many of these women had been previously taking as OC!)

Despite this, it seems few people at the NCI are willing to confront the hormonal causes of breast cancer—even to this day.

Instead, as with other cancers, the NCI went on a wild goose chase, looking for other risk factors for breast cancer. Such as alcohol, dietary fat, dairy, eggs, meat, and protein.

Of course, none of the research really panned out.

And they still don't know what to tell worried women other than to get routine mammogram screenings, which can detect smaller and smaller breast growths, but don't save lives, according to the most recent research.

So, now that you understand a bit more about the history of OC and the biology of breast cancer, let's move onto the recent study…

Recent study shows OC poses clear, long-lasting threats to women

In the recent study, researchers analyzed results from 54 studies involving nearly 12,000 women as part of the African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Consortium.

Researchers found that both recent use and long duration of prior use of hormonal contraceptives were strongly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

More specifically:

Women who had used OC within the past five years had a 78 percent increased risk of developing triple-negative (TN) breast cancer, one of the deadliest and most aggressive types of breast cancer.Women who took OC within the past five years had a 46 percent higher risk of developing ER+ breast cancer and estrogen negative-receptors (ER-), another type of cancer.The ER+ breast cancer risk remained for 15 to 19 years after stopping OC use.The ER- breast cancer risk remained beyond 19 years after stopping OC use.

So, at the end of the day, birth control pills raise breast cancer risk. And the risk can continue 20 years (or more) after you stop taking them!

This risk occurs because OCs prevent pregnancies (as intended). But as I explained earlier, pregnancy and fewer lifetime menstrual cycles have a clear anti-cancer effect. Birth control pills also present the double whammy of promoting breast cancer through their hormonal effects. Plus, they increase the risk of other health-related complications, such as blood clots.

Fortunately, there are many natural ways to reduce your breast cancer risk—and your risk of developing other types of cancer. We actually began learning about them in the mid-1990s…

In fact, in 1996, then-Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania nominated me to serve as a U.S. representative to a Canadian Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on breast cancer. The Canadian panel found that botanicals, vitamins (such as vitamin D), and minerals significantly reduce a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. They also improve survival and quality of life in women with breast cancer.
- Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D.

08/08/2019

26/04/2019

How to “see” breast cancer faster than a mammogram

Dr. Adria Schmedthorst

During a recent visit to my doctor’s office for routine bloodwork, the nurse asked me why there wasn’t a mammogram report in my file.

“You need to get one soon,” Tammy said. “You’re over 40, and you should be getting one every year. The risk for getting breast cancer only goes up as you get older.”

After I told her that I appreciated her concern, I explained how I was using a better technology for detecting cancer, one that offers the opportunity to “see” abnormal cell growth well before a mammogram ever could.

She was really curious and a little skeptical, as I shared with her details about the screening I use. I told her that my test:

Doesn’t have a high rate of false positives, unlike mammogramsIs painless compared to the painful squeezing that can actually stimulate cancer growthDoesn’t subject me to any harmful radiation, unlike mammogramsGives me immediate feedback on the process that fuels cancerous cell growth

So, what is it?

The breast cancer screening that trumps mammograms

It’s called breast thermography, and it uses infrared cameras to detect, analyze, and produce high-resolution images of temperature and vascular changes (think changes in your blood vessels).

With thermography, there’s no compression of the breast tissue, which can actually stimulate cancer growth. And, let’s admit it, is just plain uncomfortable.

You simply sit in front of the thermal imaging equipment for about 15 minutes and you’re done.

Then, just like with any medical imaging, you’re scans are sent out to be read. A doctor then notes any changes in the temperature in and around your breast area, including your armpits.

Sounds easy, right?

And, you know what’s even better?

Any signs of possible cancer or pre-cancerous cell growth activity may be detected up to 10 years prior to being discovered using any other procedure, including mammography.

That’s a 10 year window that could save your life!

But why does a change in temperature matter?

According to Dr. Philip Getson, D.O., “It is widely acknowledged that cancers, even in their earliest stages, need nutrients to maintain or accelerate their growth. In order to facilitate this process, blood vessels are caused to remain open, inactive blood vessels are activated, and new ones are formed through a process known as neoangiogenesis. This vascular process causes an increase in surface temperature in the affected regions, which can be viewed with infrared imaging cameras. Additionally, the newly formed or activated blood vessels have a distinct appearance, which thermography can detect.”

And, more than 30 years of research, involving 800+ peer-reviewed studies, and over 300,000 women revealed that:

An abnormal infrared image is the single most important marker of high risk for developing breast cancer.An abnormal thermogram is 10 times more significant as a future risk indicator for breast cancer than a first order family history of the disease.When used as part of a multimodal approach (clinical examination + mammography + thermography) 95% of early stage cancers will be detected.

And to top it off, thermograms have a sensitivity rate of 90 percent compared to an overall sensitivity rate of 87 percent in mammograms!

So, if you want to detect breast cancer as early as possible while avoiding the risk of radiation, breast thermography is the clear choice. By detecting small changes in your breasts early, you can make the diet and lifestyle changes necessary in order to lower your cancer risks and preserve your breast health.

12/04/2019

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/hidden-dangers-mammograms-every-woman-should-know-about?mc_cid=fbc7c63363&mc_eid=c4ec716f7c

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself.

24/08/2018

This article is a few years old but it is still relevant now. Maybe even more relevant now than before.
----------------------------
Is Breast Cancer Screening Actually Beneficial?

It is the expected norm within the medical community that women -- especially those over 40 or with a family history of breast cancer -- should get their annual mammography without fail. But how effective of a tool is it in actually saving lives?

According to a recent study by an international team of researchers at various European institutions, the answer is that it's not especially effective. Breast cancer screening was not shown to have a major impact on the reduction of breast cancer mortality in the recent past.1 While the mortality rates from breast cancer have certainly gone down in most developed countries in the last two decades, it would seem that the lower numbers might not be attributable to mammography.

The researchers examined breast cancer mortality rates by pairing up European nations. In each pair were countries with comparable healthcare systems and comparable breast cancer risk factors; but in each case, the country listed first made mammography screening a standard of care roughly 10 to 15 years earlier than the nation listed second in the pair. The countries that were analyzed for this study were Northern Ireland compared to the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands compared to both Belgium and Flanders, and Sweden compared to Norway.

The expectation, obviously, was that the rates of death due to breast cancer would drop much more quickly in those nations that began the screening process sooner. However, the reality was that those rates fell consistently across the board between 1989 and 2006 -- in fact, sometimes even more quickly in the countries that incorporated mammography as a health care standard later. Northern Ireland experienced a 29 percent drop versus 26 percent for the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands had a 25 percent reduction versus 20 percent for Belgium and 25 percent for Flanders, and Sweden underwent a 16 percent decrease versus 24 percent for Norway, which started regular screening much later. This was not the way it was supposed to be!

The extra decade or more of mammography screening did not make a difference in mortality rates. The largest drop in breast cancer mortality was found to be in women between the ages of 40 and 49, whether they were receiving mammograms or not. While the authors appear ready to give the medical establishment a hearty pat on the back for these better numbers, even though they did not result from more mammograms, they may very well have resulted from something other than improved health care and "superior" treatment.

Another "possibility" could just be that breast cancer mortality rates have been reduced because hormone replacement therapy(HRT) finally stopped being widely prescribed by doctors everywhere. For many years, the medical community prescribed synthetic estrogen and progestin pills for postmenopausal women as a matter of course to supposedly relieve the symptoms of menopause. Eventually, though, numerous studies found the risks wildly outweighed any benefits HRT conferred. Some of the horrifying discoveries made in the research were that HRT leads to a 62 percent increase in risk of stroke, up to a 35 percent increased risk of heart disease, and a 66 percent increased risk of getting breast cancer.

Because of the profound health risks discovered, the first Women's Health Initiative study was stopped three years before scheduled completion. Within a year of discontinuing HRT, the number of new breast cancers among the subjects declined by 28 percent. In the second (voluntary) study, 50 percent of the subjects stopped HRT, and that was reflected in a 43 percent drop in new breast cancers. Plus, when news got out to the public, women stopped taking HRT in huge numbers and again, breast cancer rates plummeted. Overall, HRT prescription rates are down about 50% from their peak. That means about 3,000,000 women in the US alone are no longer facing a 66% increased risk of breast cancer. I'm not sure that doctors can ethically give themselves a pat on the back for no longer "prescribing" breast cancer for their patients. But back to mammograms.

The current study clearly calls into question the medical establishment's pet theory that the reduction in breast cancer rates has more to do with the fact that the subjects in the study got more frequent mammograms than women in the general public, and that fewer mammograms leads to fewer detected cancers. It would appear that conclusion, to put it kindly, is subject to debate. Another consideration that Jon Barron discussed two years ago is that because of the high doses of radiation involved, each mammogram increases your risk of getting breast cancer by two percent. Two percent may not seem like a lot until you add up ten to fifteen years worth of annual two percent increases that you get with regular mammograms. It pretty much nullifies any advantage early detection gives you, which would help explain why increased mammogram screening does not improve mortality statistics. While it is wonderful that breast cancer mortality rates are down, it is unfortunate that they rose in the first place because of the very "therapies" and "diagnostic tools" the medical community created for women. Sometimes, it seems, we are our own worst enemy.



1 Autler, Phillippe; Boniol, Mathieu; Gavin, Anna; and Vatten, Lars J. "Breast Cancer Mortality in Neighbouring European Countries With Different Levles of Screening but Similar Access to Treatment: Trend Analysis of WHO Mortality Database." British Medical Journal. 28 July 2011. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 30 August 2011. .

Objective To compare trends in breast cancer mortality within three pairs of neighbouring European countries in relation to implementation of screening. Design Retrospective trend analysis. Setting Three country pairs (Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) v Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands v Belgiu...

29/10/2017

As an additional comment to item #4 on the recetly posted link:

Since 2008, when we first introduced MDITI in the Philippines, I have often seen a direct correlation between oral health and breast health.

A documented case of a client who came to me with a biopsy-confirmed breast cancer. Her MDITI result showed a pattern connecting her teeth to the breast cancer.

After making a plan and program to address this issue, the cancer went away without chemotherapy or radiation or surgery which were what her oncologist was recommending before she came to see me.

The point being: look to oral health as part of your breast cancer prevention practices and if you do have breast issues, consider your oral or dental health.

Getting an MDITI done can give you a visual of what is going on between your mouth and your breast.

Write or call me if you have more questions.

29/10/2017

https://easyhealthoptions.com/10-simple-ways-reduce-risk-breast-cancer/

The web app you have attempted to reach is not available in this Microsoft Azure App Service region. This could be due to one of several reasons:

12/07/2017

http://www.getholistichealth.com/46118/mammograms-send-women-to-their-deathbeds-faster-and-increase-their-risk-of-breast-cancer-as-much-as-30-percent/

Even with the established evidence which supports the long-term health risks and danger of mammograms, the medical community still pushes them like pancakes.

06/07/2017

http://www.naturalnews.com/055806_breast_cancer_mammography_harming_women.html

Surgeons admit that mammography is outdated and harmful to women