Every year when Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) comes around I am a saddened and surprised that thermography hasn't become more popular. Part of this is my mindset. I'd rather focus on breast health and ways to prevent breast cancer at the cellular level than put the emphasis on testing and retesting until you finally do find something to poke, prod, cut out or radiate. That's why I call October Breast Health Awareness Month, not Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I understand that mammography has been the gold standard for years. Doctors are the most familiar with this test, and many believe that a mammogram is the best test for detecting breast cancer early. But it's not. Studies show that a thermogram identifies precancerous or cancerous cells earlier, and produces unambiguous results, which cuts down on additional testing--and it doesn't hurt the body. Isn't this what women really want?

I recently discussed thermography with my colleague Philip Getson, D.O. Dr. Getson has been a medical thermographer since 1982. As you may know, thermography is a form of thermal (infrared) imaging. Dr. Getson explains how thermography works this way.

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. Heat is an indication that inflammation exists, and typically inflammation is present in precancerous and cancerous cells, too. (It's also present in torn muscles and ligaments as well as arthritic joints, which thermography can also detect.)

Thermography's accuracy and reliability is remarkable, too. In the 1970s and 1980s, a great deal of research was conducted on thermography. In 1981, Michel Gautherie, Ph.D., and his colleagues reported on a 10-year study, which found that an abnormal thermogram was 10 times more significant as a future risk indicator for breast cancer than having a history of breast cancer in your family.[1]

Early Detection

The most promising aspect of thermography is its ability to spot anomalies years before mammography. Using the same data from the 10-year study, researchers H. Spitalier and D. Giruaud determined that thermography alone was the first alarm in 60 percent of the cases of women who were eventually diagnosed with cancer.[2] Dr. Getson adds:

Since thermal imaging detects changes at the cellular level, studies suggest that this test can detect activity 8 to 10 years before any other test. This makes it unique in that it affords us the opportunity to view changes before the actual formation of the tumor. Studies have shown that by the time a tumor has grown to sufficient size to be detectable by physical examination or mammography, it has in fact been growing for about seven years achieving more than 25 doublings of the malignant cell colony. At 90 days there are two cells, at one year there are 16 cells, and at five years there are 1,048,576 cells--an amount that is still undetectable by a mammogram. (At 8 years, there are almost 4 billion cells.) 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.

Clearer Results, Fewer Additional Tests

To many, it felt like the world was set on its ear when, in November 2009, the United States Preventative Services Task Force said it recommended that women begin regular mammograms at 50 instead of 40 and that mammograms are needed every two years instead of annually between the ages of 50 and 74. Some women felt this was a way for the insurance companies to save money, but I cheered these new guidelines. (For more information read "The New Mammography Guidelines" in the Women's Wisdom Circle on www.drnorthrup.com.) The Task Force concluded that the risk of additional and unnecessary testing far outweighed the benefits of annual mammograms--and I couldn't agree more.

Ten years ago, Danish researchers Ole Olsen and Peter Gotzsche concluded, after analyzing data from seven studies, that mammograms often led to needless treatments and were linked to a 20 percent increase in mastectomies, many of which were unnecessary.[3] Dr. Getson expounded, "According to the 1998 Merck Manual, for every case of breast cancer diagnosed each year, 5 to 10 women will undergo a painful breast biopsy. This means that if a woman has an annual mammogram for 10 years, she has a 50 percent chance of having a breast biopsy."

Thermography is a particularly good choice for younger breasts, which tend to be denser. It doesn't identify fibrocystic tissue, breast implants or scars as needing further investigation. It's also good at detecting changes in the cells in the armpit area, an area that mammography isn't always good at screening. Perhaps even more exciting is that a thermogram can help a woman diagnosed with ductal carconoma in situ (DCIS) decide, along with her health practitioners, whether she requires aggressive or conservative treatment. If you've ever had an unnecessary biopsy or been scared by a false positive result on a mammogram, please consider getting a thermogram and using it in conjunction with the mammogram to figure our your treatment options.

It's Safe.

Thermography is very safe--it's even safe for pregnant and nursing women! It's merely an image of the heat of your body.

It's ironic that the test women are using for prevention may be causing the very problem they're trying to avoid in the first place! Another reason the United States Preventative Services Task Force reversed its aggressive mammogram guidelines was because of the exposure to radiation. It's well known that excessive doses of radiation can increase your risk of cancer.[4] And this doesn't even touch on the harm done to the body from unnecessary biopsies, lumpectomies, mastectomies, chemotherapy, radiation treatment and so forth.

It Doesn't Hurt

Unlike a mammogram, a thermogram doesn't hurt! Just about everyone who's ever had a mammogram has complained about how painful it is. The first time you get a mammogram can be quite a shock. Who knew a breast could be flattened like that? Well, the pain isn't in your imagination. The pressure that the mammogram machine puts on each breast when it's being compressed is equivalent to putting a 50-pound weight on your breast.

The Best Test for You

As with anything, I suggest you let your inner guidance help you in all decisions about your health. If you feel it's best to get an annual mammogram, then by all means continue with them. Just be aware of the drawbacks and risks associated with the test. One helpful way to assess your risk for breast cancer--which in turn can help you decide how often you want to have mammograms--is to use the National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. After you answer seven simple questions, it calculates both your risk of getting invasive breast cancer in the next five years as well as your lifetime risk, and it compares each to the risk for the average U.S. woman of the same age and race or ethnicity.

You would be surprised by how many women tell me their doctors make them feel guilty for not having a mammogram. Women who just know they have healthy breasts. Don't be intimidated if you prefer to forgo annual mammography.

Thermography is a better technology for all the reasons I've already described. Plus it gives results that are unique to you, time after time. But there are some things to be wary of. Dr. Getson explains, "To be sure, not all thermographic equipment is the same, nor is every center backed by qualified, board-certified physicians who are specifically trained in the interpretation of these images.

Dr. Getson says that women (and men) seeking to have infrared imaging should consider the following:

1. What is the "drift factor" in the apparatus? Anything over 0.2 degrees centigrade leads to poor reproducibility.
2. What are the credentials of the interpreting physician?
3. The room in which the study is performed should be free of outside light and the temperature should always be at 68-72 degrees Fahrenheit, with a proper cooling system in place.
4. Make sure the images are marked up (doctors call this "stat"-ed) for future comparison.
5. Ask if the studies are read on site or sent by email to a distant interpreter.
6. Be sure that the physician is available to explain and discuss all findings.

Instead of just screening for breast cancer, a thermogram can tell you how healthy your breasts are. It also has the potential to truly detect breast cell anomalies long before mammography can detect cancer, when done properly. This allows you to implement lifestyle changes that can improve the health of your breasts proactively instead of waiting for a cancer diagnosis later. In honor of Breast Health Awareness month, I encourage you to check out thermography for yourself and your loved ones.

To learn more about Dr. Northrup go to www.drnorthrup.com. For more cutting edge articles on health and wellness, visit www.drnorthrup.com and sign up for the Women's Wisdom Circle.

Copyright Christiane Northrup, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Original article here.


References:
1. M. Gautherie and C. M. Gros, "Breast Thermography and Cancer Risk Prediction," Cancer, vol. 45, no. 1 (January 1, 1980), pp. 51-56.
2. H. Spitalier et al., "Does Infrared Thermography Truly Have a Role in Present-Day Breast Cancer Management?" in M. Gautherie and E. Albert, eds., Biomedical Thermology: Proceedings of an International Symposium (New York: A. R. Liss, 1982), pp. 269-78; R. Amalric et al., "Does Infrared Thermography Truly Have a Role in Present-Day Breast Cancer Management?" Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, vol. 107 (1982), pp. 269-78.
3. Gotzsche, P. and Olsen, O., "Is Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography Justifiable?" The Lancet, vol. 355, no. 9198 (Jan. 8, 2000), pp. 129-34; Gotzsche, P. and Olsen, O., Cochrane Review on Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography, The Lancet, vol. 358, no. 9290 (Oct. 20, 2001), pp. 1340-42.
4. Semelka, R., Imaging X-rays cause cancer: a call to action for caregivers and patients, Medscape, Feb. 13, 2006, reviewed and renewed Feb. 16, 2007.

 
 
Ding Y, Gao Y, Sun H, Han H, Wang W, Ji X, Liu X, Sun D. 2010. The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.097.
 
 Liu YJ, Gao Q, Wu CX, Guan ZZ. 2010. Alterations of nAChRs and ERK1/2 in the brains of rats with chronic fluorosis and their connections with the decreased capacity of learning and memory. Toxicology Letters 192: 324-329.
 
More than 100 animal studies have linked fluoride to brain damage, and 24 additional studies in humans have found an association between high levels of fluoride in drinking water and reduced intelligence. Ding et al. (2010) studied 331 children ages 7-14 years living in Hulunbuir City, China, exposed to drinking water with fluoride levels <3 mg/L (mean: 1.31+1.05 mg/L; range: 0.24-2.84 mg/L). Urine fluoride levels, incidence of dental fluorosis (diagnosed with Dean's Index), and intelligence quotient (IQ, assessed with Combined Raven's Test for Rural China) were determined. The authors found a dose-dependent response between urine fluoride levels and incidence of dental fluorosis. Also observed was an inverse association between urine fluoride levels and IQ: a 0.59-point decrease in IQ was observed for each 1 mg/L increase in urine fluoride. Thus, low levels of fluoride in drinking water, even within the range of levels currently allowed, negatively impact children's intelligence and dental health.
 
Chronic exposure to elevated levels of fluoride results in decreased memory and learning ability, but the mechanisms underlying these effects are not known. To address this issue, Liu et al. (2010) exposed rats to varying concentrations of fluoride in drinking water for 6 months. As expected, spatial learning and memory of the rats were significantly reduced in both the low- (5 mg/L) and high (50 mg/L) fluoride groups when compared to the control group (<0.5 mg/L), as determined by increased times of Morris Water Maze tests. When compared with controls, both the low- and high fluoride exposed groups revealed altered expression of several proteins related to cognition in both rats and humans, including decreased protein expression for two nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (alpha- 4 and alpha-7  nAChR), increased expression for phospho- and total ERK1/2 and phospho-MEK1/2, and decreased activation rate of phospho-ERK1/2. Rats require water fluoride levels 4-5 times greater than humans to produce similar blood plasma fluoride levels. That these changes were observed in even the low fluoride group of the present study suggests similar alterations may be responsible for the decreased intelligence of children exposed to relatively low water fluoride levels, as in Ding et al. (above).

 
CDC reports 41% of 12-15 year-olds have dental fluorosis
 
Beltran-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye BA. 2010. Prevalence and severity of dental
fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS data brief, no 53. Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
 
Dental fluorosis refers to hypomineralization of the teeth, producing mottled, stained, pitted surfaces. Dental fluorosis is caused by exposure to systemic (ingested) fluoride during periods of tooth development. The prevalence of dental fluorosis has been increasing in the United States with the concomitant expansion of water fluoridation and the increasing ingestion of fluoride from other sources. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999-2004 were analyzed, and were compared with data from the 1986-1987 National Survey of Oral Health in U.S. School Children. Both surveys assessed all permanent teeth using Dean's Fluorosis Index.  Approximately 23% of Americans aged 6-49 had some definitive form of dental fluorosis between 1999-2004, and another 17% met the criteria for "questionable" fluorosis status. Among adolescents, 33% of those aged 6-11, 41% of those aged 12-15, and 36% of those aged 16-19 had some form of dental fluorosis. For adolescents aged 12-15, the prevalence of dental fluorosis increased from 23% in 1986-87 to 41% in 1999-2004, indicating that a large percentage of the U.S. population is being overexposed to fluoride.

 
Increased risk of fluorosis from infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water
 
 Levy SM, Broffitt B, Marshall TA, Eichenberger-Gilmore JM, Warren JJ. 2010. Associations between fluorosis of permanent incisors and fluoride intake from infant formula, other dietary sources and dentifrice during early childhood. Journal of the American Dental Association 141(10): 1190-1201.
 
In the United States, the primary source of ingested fluoride is fluoridated water, including that used in the preparation of foods and other beverages. For many infants, formula is a major source of nutrition, and this formula is often reconstituted with fluoridated tap water. The concentration of fluoride in infant formulas reconstituted with "optimally" fluoridated water is up to 200 times greater than that found in breast milk. The Iowa Fluoride Study (IFS), as reported in Levy et al. (2010) determined fluoride intake of children starting at age 1.5 months via questionnaires completed by parents, and determined incidence and severity of dental fluorosis via dental exams administered when children were about 9 years of age. An increased incidence of dental fluorosis of permanent incisors was associated with increased fluoride intakes from reconstituted infant formulas between ages 3-9 months. According to the authors, fluorosis was associated with "higher consumption of powdered concentrate formula and higher fluoride levels in the water used to reconstitute the formula." The majority of participants in this study lived in areas with "optimally" fluoridated water. The authors state that formula prepared with "low-fluoride-content water would result in much less fluoride ingestion and, presumably, substantially less or milder dental fluorosis." Also reported was an increased risk of fluorosis due to higher intake of fluoridated toothpastes between 16-36 months.

 
At least one-quarter of UK population over-exposed to fluoride 
 
 Mansfield P. 2010. Fluoride consumption: the effect of water fluoridation. Fluoride 43(4): 223-231.
 
Over-consumption of fluoride is an issue of concern worldwide, as fluoride has been linked to adverse health effects such as dental fluorosis, reduced thyroid function, weakened bones, skeletal fluorosis, and reduced intelligence. Mansfield (2010) re-analyzed data from the 2000-2003 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS). Using a revised calculation to estimate fluoride intake (i.e. 45% fluoride excretion rate based on current literature, instead of 100% excretion rate as was originally proposed), the author found that the original estimate of those exceeding the Safe Intake (SI) level for fluoride (0.05 mg/kg body weight/day, as established by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy) was an order of magnitude too low--25% of the UK population is now estimated to exceed the SI for fluoride, and nearly two-thirds of those living in fully fluoridated areas exceed the SI for fluoride. The author concludes that "fluoridating water pushes the majority of consumers into excessive fluoride intake," and that small children are more susceptible to the long-term adverse health effects related to over-consumption, as they retain more fluoride than adults.

 
Fluoride decreases bone strength
 
          Chachra D, Limeback H, Willett TL, Grynpas MD. 2010. The long-term effects of 
            water fluoridation on the human skeleton. Journal of Dental Research 89(11): 
            1219-1223.
 
 Community water fluoridation has long been touted as a safe and effective means to reduce dental caries in a population, yet data on the long-term safety of low levels of systemic fluoride exposure on the myriad of body systems are either inconclusive or completely lacking. Ingested fluoride is incorporated into the bones, suggesting that exposure over a lifetime, even to the relatively low levels experienced via fluoridated water, may affect the structural or mechanical properties of bone. Chachra et al. (2010) compared bone specimens from residents of fluoridated Toronto to those of non-fluoridated Montreal, with the hypothesis that these populations would reveal patterns consistent with differences in long-term fluoride exposure. The fluoride content of bones from the fluoridated area was significantly higher than those from the non-fluoridated area. Bone from Toronto residents showed greater mean strain at ultimate compressive stress (UCS, an indicator of fracture risk) and greater energy absorbed to failure than bone from Montreal residents. However, the authors failed to control for age, which was greater for those residents in non-fluoridated Montreal. Bones typically weaken with age, and thus the effects of a more elderly population in Montreal may have obscured the full effect of fluoride on the Toronto population. A more relevant finding is that UCS and yield stress declined with increasing fluoride content of bone, indicating that bone strength decreases with increasing bone fluoride level. While similar animal studies have been performed, this is the first human epidemiological study to utilize such an analysis to study fluoride levels and risk of bone fracture, and thus should be seriously considered by public health officials when performing evidence-based risk assessments for fluoride exposures for the whole of the population.

 
Fluoride increases serum lead concentrations
 
Sawan RMM, Leite GAS, Saraiva MCP, Barbosa Jr. F, Tanus-Santos JE, Gerlach RF. 2010. Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology 271(1-2): 21-26.
 
Silicofluorides are used in more than 90% of artificially fluoridated water in the United States. However, an association between silicofluoride-treated community water and increased blood lead concentrations among children has been previously reported. Early exposure to lead results in cognitive impairment and lower IQ scores in children. Sawan et al. (2010) examined the effects of fluoride (as fluosilicic acid, H2SiF6, containing 100 mg/L F), co-administered with lead (as lead acetate, containing 30 mg/L Pb) on Wistar rats exposed from the beginning of gestation. As this was a proof-of-concept study, high levels of fluoride were administered to maximize the influence of fluoride on lead concentrations. After 81 days there were significantly higher blood lead concentrations, and two- to threefold higher lead concentrations in calcified tissues, in the F+Pb Group compared to the Pb Group. Thus, a biological effect not yet recognized may underlie the association between water fluoridation and increased blood lead levels observed in children.

 
Fluoride disrupts cardiac function
 
Varol E, Akcay S, Ersoy IH, Koroglu BK, Varol S. 2010a. Impact of chronic fluorosis on left ventricular diastolic and global functions. Science of the Total Environment 408(11): 2295-2298.
 
Varol E, Akcay S, Ersoy H, Ozaydin M, Korogly BK, Varol S. 2010b. Aortic elasticity is impaired in patients with endemic fluorosis. Biol Trace Elem Res 133: 121-127.
 
Elevated levels of fluoride in the blood lower the availability of calcium to the body, which can impair cardiac function. In cases of acute fluoride poisoning, for example, the levels of available calcium can be so low as to cause cardiac arrest. Exposure to sub-acute levels of fluoride may have more subtle effects on the heart. Research by Varol et al. (2010a) found that fluorosis patients had significantly higher urine fluoride levels than controls, as expected. In addition, left ventricular myocardial performance index (MPI), calculated as (isovolumic contraction time+isovolumic relaxation time)/aortic ejection time, was also significantly higher in fluorosis patients than in matched controls, suggesting that patients with endemic fluorosis have left ventricular diastolic and global dysfunctions.
 
A related study by Varol et al. (2010b) found significantly lower aortic strain (AS) and aortic distensibility (AD), but significantly higher aortic strain index (ASI) in endemic fluorosis patients than in controls, indicating that the elastic properties of the ascending aorta are impaired in patients with endemic fluorosis. Thus sub-acute exposures to fluoride may manifest as cardiac dysfunction, potentially increasing future risks of cardiac-related problems.

Fluoride as a pro-inflammatory factor
 
Gutowska I, Baranowska-Bosiacha I, Baskiewicz M, Milo B, Siennicka A, Marchiewicz M, Wiszniewska B, Machalinski B, Stachowska E. 2010. Fluoride as a pro-inflammatory factor and inhibitor of ATP bioavailability in differentiated human THP1 monocytic cells. Toxicology Letters 196: 74-79.
 
Inflammatory reactions underlie the pathogenesis of the atherosclerotic process, and oxygen free radicals formed during these reactions contribute to aggravation of atherosclerotic lesions. Gutowska et al. (2010) incubated differentiated human THP1 monocytic cells (macrophages) in NaF solution for 48 h at concentrations similar to fluoride concentrations found in human serum (1, 3, 6 and 10 µM). Incubation of macrophages in fluoride solutions significantly decreased the amount of synthesized cellular ATP, and increased the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and apoptotic cells in a dose-dependent pattern. Thus fluoride may be considered pro-atherogenic and pro-apoptotic, and long-term exposure to low concentrations of fluoride may lead to harmful changes in cellular metabolism.

Gynecol Endocrinol. 2010 Dec 21.

Progesterone inhibits growth and induces apoptosis in cancer cells through modulation of reactive oxygen species.
Nguyen H, Syed V.

Summary
Progesterone (P4) has been implicated as a protective factor for ovarian and endometrial cancers, yet little is known about its mechanism of action. We have shown apoptosis in ovarian and endometrial cancer cells with high doses of P4. Increased generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and an altered redox status have long been observed in cancer cells. The goal of this study was to assess the effect of P4 on cell growth, ROS generation, oxidative stress markers, and the expression of antioxidant proteins. Methods. All experiments were performed in vitro using cancer cell lines. Cell proliferation was determined using MTS proliferation assay. Production of ROS in cells was measured with the ROS indicator dye, aminophenyl fluorescein. Alterations in expression of antioxidant and apoptotic proteins were assessed by Western blotting. Results. 

The exposure of ovarian and endometrial cancer cell cultures to various doses of P4 caused a dose-dependent decrease in cell viability and the activation of caspase-3. Levels of ROS, markers of oxidative stress, and antioxidant proteins were elevated in cancer cells compared to normal cells and a marked decrease in their expression was seen following P4 treatment. In cancer cells, ROS was elevated while p-53 expression was low. P4 exposure of cells resulted in increased p-53 and BAX and decreased BCL-2 expression. Conclusions. The data indicates that P4 has antioxidant effects. It alleviates ROS stress and causes apoptosis by upregulating proapoptotic (p-53 and BAX) and decreasing antiapoptotic (BCL-2) gene expression in cancer cells. These findings could have potential therapeutic implications.

By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY A study of hormone use in nearly 700,000 Danish women over 50 suggests that when it comes to heart attack risk, patches or gels are safer than the combination pills most American women use. The authors say this is the largest postmenopausal hormones study since the Women's Health Initiative, which randomly assigned 27,000 U.S. women to estrogen or estrogen-plus-progestin pills or to a placebo.

BETTER LIFE: The estrogen-plus-progestin arm found the hormones raised women's heart attack risk, while the estrogen-only found no effect on heart attack risk. Initial findings were reported in 2002 and 2004, respectively.

In the new study, published in the European Heart Journal, researchers used national registries of prescription use and heart attacks to follow all healthy Danish women ages 51-69 from 1995 to 2001.

Overall, they found no effect of hormone use on heart attack risk. But they did find that women who took estrogen-plus-progestin pills had a 35% higher heart attack risk, similar to the Women's Health Initiative finding. Lead author Ellen Løkkegaard, a gynecologist at Copenhagen's Rigshospitalet, believes her findings about other hormone treatments not covered in the U.S. study are valid.

"The only piece of good news, potentially, is they show a reduced risk in users of non-oral therapies," says the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Jacques Rossouw, a lead scientist for the Women's Health Initiative.

Patches and gels don't appear to have the same effect on blood-clotting or inflammation as hormone pills, he says.

The new study also suggests that taking estrogen every day but progestin only certain days of the month, which causes monthly vaginal bleeding, is safer on the heart than taking estrogen and progestin every day.

Although Løkkegaard's study overall found no increased heart attack risk in hormone users, it did find that those 51-54 did have a 25% higher risk. The increase might have been because some non-users in that group weren't yet postmenopausal, Løkkegaard says, and naturally have a lower heart disease risk than post-menopausal peers taking hormones.

She says she and her collaborators also have analyzed postmenopausal hormones and breast cancer risk but have not yet reported the findings.

  Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-30-hormones-heart-attack_N.htm