The Best Breast Cancer Screening Tests

Studies show that a thermogram identifies precancerous or cancerous cells earlier, produces unambiguous results — which cuts down on additional testing — and doesn’t hurt the body. To learn more, read the full blog post or call today to make your appointment 541-302-2977.

screen-shot-2016-10-18-at-12-37-56-pmThe Best Breast Cancer Screening Tests

6 Reasons Why I Recommend Thermography

In the past two weeks, I’ve had two friends tell me that they have had bilateral mastectomies for DCIS, or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. This absolutely breaks my heart because DCIS is NOT cancer.  But, increasingly, due to high resolution mammograms, DCIS is being picked up on breast cancer screening tests. And, depending upon what advice a woman is then given, she may well be advised to get treatment, which she rarely needs.

DCIS is widely misunderstood.

Currently DCIS is considered Stage 0 cancer, but for years, some experts have been recommending that changes be made to this classification, and even to the name.

One proposal calls for a new classification called “indolent” instead of “cancer” for tumors that are unlikely to cause harm. So DCIS would be called “indolent lesions of epithelial origin,” or “IDLE.” This certainly makes way more sense considering that 99.9 percent of the time DCIS is something a woman will die with but not die from!

The Alarming Rise of Mastectomies

A large study of over 51,000 women found that the number of women who decided to have both breasts removed (double mastectomy) after being diagnosed with DCIS in one breast more than tripled between 1998 and 2005.

And, the likelihood that a woman would decide to have prophylactic mastectomy on the other healthy breast increased during the time studied: In 1998, 4.1% of the women had prophylactic mastectomy. In 2005, 13.5% had prophylactic mastectomy.

Screening tests have led to a great deal of over diagnosis and over treatment, a view supported by breast cancer surgeon Dr. Laura Esserman, who happens to be a heroine of mine. In an article published in October, 2015 in JAMA Oncology, breast cancer surgeon, Dr. Esserman says:

Now DCIS accounts for approximately 20% to 25% of screen-detected breast cancers. The cells that make up DCIS look like invasive cancer both pathologically and molecularly, and therefore the presumption was made that these lesions were the precursors of cancer and that early removal and treatment would reduce cancer incidence and mortality. However, long-term epidemiology studies have demonstrated that the removal of 50 000 to 60 000 DCIS lesions annually has not been accompanied by a reduction in the incidence of invasive breast cancers.

The problem is that women have been trained to be so afraid of breast cancer that they’ll often willingly sacrifice their breasts just to relieve their anxiety—or what a doctor friend of mine calls “surveillance fatigue.”  Plus, most doctors are trained to do something when they have a diagnosis. And given the number of them who have been sued for “failure to diagnose,” it’s not surprising that so many women agree to sacrifice their breasts rather than take what they are taught is a huge risk, even when it isn’t.

For these reasons, it’s not surprising that the number of women having prophylactic mastectomies “just in case” has soared. The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy more than tripled from 2002 to 2012 even though studies have shown that removing healthy breasts doesn’t improve survival. And, with celebrities such as Sharon Osbourne and Angelina Jolie having double mastectomies preventively, I expect this rate will continue to rise.

As a caring physician, I’m certainly not going to be a Monday morning quarterback and ask a woman why she didn’t do more research about DCIS before having drastic and often unnecessary surgery. That would be pouring salt into her wound. On the other hand, this all too common situation makes me more determined than ever to help educate women about breast health, including the fact that far too many women are being over diagnosed and over-treated for so called breast cancers that are not cancers. (By the way, the same thing happens with thyroid and prostate conditions!)

Monitoring Your Breast Health

Before succumbing to what I refer to as October Pink Madness, please know that there are tried and true ways to maintain breast health, and also monitor it. One of those is paying attention to your dreams. That’s right—My colleague Dr. Larry Burke has published studies showing that a dream about having breast cancer is often very accurate at diagnosing the problem. But there are other more conventional approaches, including thermography.

Why Thermography Is Your Best Breast Test Option

Every year when Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) comes around I am 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. 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, produces unambiguous results — which cuts down on additional testing —  and doesn’t hurt the body.

As you may know, thermography is a form of thermal (infrared) imaging. My colleague, Philip Getson, D.O. has been a medical thermographer since 1982. 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.

Remember, 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!

Early Breast Cancer Detection and Accuracy

Today, women are encouraged to get a mammogram, so they can find their breast cancer as early as possible. The most promising aspect of thermography is its ability to spot anomalies years before mammography. Using the same ten-year study data, (Spitalier 1) researcher Dr. Getson adds:

Since thermal imaging detects changes at the cellular level, studies suggest that this test can detect activity eight to ten 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 twenty-five 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.)

Thermography’s accuracy and reliability is remarkable, too. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, a great deal of research was conducted on thermography. In 1981, Michel Gautherie, Ph.D., and his colleagues reported on a ten-year study, which found that an abnormal thermogram was ten times more significant as a future risk indicator for breast cancer than having a history of breast cancer in your family. (Gautherie 2)

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

It seems like the world was set on its ear in November 2009 when 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 only 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. 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.

Even before the U.S. Preventative Task Force’s recommendation, 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. (Goetshe 3) Dr. Getson expounded, “According to the 1998 Merck Manual, for every case of breast cancer diagnosed each year, five to ten women will undergo a painful breast biopsy. This means that if a woman has an annual mammogram for ten years, she has a 50 percent chance of having a breast biopsy.”

If you’ve ever had an unnecessary biopsy or been scared by a false positive result on a mammogram, please consider getting a thermogram.  You can always use it in conjunction with the mammogram to figure out your treatment options.

6 Reasons Why I Recommend Breast Thermography

In addition to early detection and accurate test results, here are some other reasons I like thermography:

  1. Good for young, dense breasts and implants. Younger breasts tend to be denser. Thermography doesn’t identify fibrocystic tissue, breast implants, or scars as needing further investigation.
  2.  Detect cell changes in arm pit area. The arm pit area is an area that mammography isn’t always good at screening.
  3.  Great additional test. Thermography can be used as an additional test to help women and their care teams make more informed treatment decisions.
  4.  It Doesn’t Hurt. The pressure of a mammogram machine is equivalent to putting a 50-pound weight on your breast, which can be quite painful for most women.
  5.  No radiation. 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. (Semelka 4). 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! And this doesn’t even touch on the harm done to the body from unnecessary biopsies, lumpectomies, mastectomies, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and so forth.
  6.  Thermography is very safe. Thermography is even safe for pregnant and nursing women! It’s merely an image of the heat of your body.

Thermography is a better technology for all of the reasons I’ve already described. Plus, it gives results that are unique to you, time after time. But Dr. Getson says there are some things you need to know. For one, not all thermographic equipment is the same. When you are choosing a thermography center, be sure to ask what the “drift factor” is for their machines.  Anything over 0.2 degrees centigrade leads to poor reproducibility. Also, 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.

Be sure that your thermography center of choice is backed by qualified, board-certified physicians who are specifically trained in the interpretation of these images. And, be sure that the physician is available to explain and discuss all findings. Finally, make sure the images are “stat”-ed or marked up for future comparison.

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 a bi-annual or annual mammogram, then by all means continue with them. Just be aware of the drawbacks and risks associated with the test.

And, don’t be intimidated or feel guilty if you prefer to forgo mammography completely. A thermogram can tell you how healthy your breasts are rather than just screening them for cancer.  When done properly, it also has the potential to truly detect breast cell anomalies long before mammography can detect cancer. This allows you to implement lifestyle changes that can improve the health of your breasts proactively.

In honor of Breast Health Awareness month, I encourage you to check out thermography for yourself and your loved ones!

Learn More — Additional Resources

Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom, by Christiane Northrup, M.D.


  1. 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.
  2. Gautherie and C. M. Gros, “Breast Thermography and Cancer Risk Prediction,” Cancer, vol. 45, no. 1 (January 1, 1980), pp. 51–56.
  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.

Why Breast Density Matters When It Comes to Breast Cancer Screening

Here is an article from Dr. Mercola….another reason to just say no to a mammogram.


Ingrid says 1/3 of the population have dense breasts and it is more the case for younger women before menopause. Remember infrared thermography is fabulous for women with dense breasts because we are looking at metabolic or physiologic/heat changes in the breast. Fibrocysts and lipomas/ fatty tumors both scan “Cold” hence reducing unnecessary biopsies. Mammograms look like a snow storm in women with dense breasts that markedly reduce visibility.



Dr. Mercola Blog Post on Mammograms

Here is the link to a great blog written by Dr. Mercola titled “Mammograms Again Found to Have No Impact on Mortality“.

The Proactive Breast Wellness Program covers all the points that Dr. Mercola wants you to follow. Go to and use the discount code PBW-20 (dash and twenty) to receive the digital download with 20% off . Our eBook version of Proactive Breast Wellness is coming soon. Send us a message in the contact section so we may let you know when it is available for purchase on Amazon and Barnes and Noble.


Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones

John G. West, 1 Nimmi S. Kapoor, 1 ,* Shu-Yuan Liao, 2 June W. Chen, 3 Lisa Bailey, 4 and Robert A. Nagourney 5

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

Go to:


Breast cancer occurring in women under the age of 40 is uncommon in the absence of family history or genetic predisposition, and prompts the exploration of other possible exposures or environmental risks. We report a case series of four young women—ages from 21 to 39—with multifocal invasive breast cancer that raises the concern of a possible association with nonionizing radiation of electromagnetic field exposures from cellular phones. All patients regularly carried their smartphones directly against their breasts in their brassieres for up to 10 hours a day, for several years, and developed tumors in areas of their breasts immediately underlying the phones. All patients had no family history of breast cancer, tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2, and had no other known breast cancer risks. Their breast imaging is reviewed, showing clustering of multiple tumor foci in the breast directly under the area of phone contact. Pathology of all four cases shows striking similarity; all tumors are hormone-positive, low-intermediate grade, having an extensive intraductal component, and all tumors have near identical morphology. These cases raise awareness to the lack of safety data of prolonged direct contact with cellular phones.


  1. Case Reports

1.1. Case 1

figure 1A 21-year-old female presented with left spontaneous bloody nipple discharge. Her history was notable for keeping her cellular phone tucked into her bra on the left side for several hours each day. Her mammogram showed extensive pleomorphic calcifications and densities from the retroareolar region to the chest wall spanning a length of 12cm. A magnetic resonance image (MRI) showed extensive abnormal nonmass enhancement in a segmental distribution corresponding to changes seen on her mammogram (Figures 1(a)1(c)). She was treated with mastectomy and pathology revealed extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with multifocal microinvasion. Sentinel lymph nodes were negative for metastatic disease.

Figure 1

Representative imaging of patient in Case 1. Left mammogram showing clustered calcification corresponding to multiple sites of disease in craniocaudal (a) and mediolateral-oblique (b) projections. MRI showing extensive nonmass enhancement in the lateral

1.2. Case 2

A 21-year-old female presented with a palpable breast mass in the area where her cellular phone was kept in direct contact with her left breast. She had been placing her cellular device in her bra for eight hours a day or longer for the past six years. Breast MRI demonstrated four distinct separate lesions ranging from 15 to 18mm in diameter involving an extensive area of the upper hemisphere of the left breast. Pathology of her mastectomy showed multifocal invasive cancer with extensive DCIS. Two of nine axillary lymph nodes were positive for metastatic disease. Later studies found metastasis to the bone.

1.3. Case 3

A 33-year-old female presented with two palpable masses in the upper outer quadrant of her right breast directly underneath where her cellular phone was placed against her breast in her bra. She had been placing her cellular phone in her bra intermittently for eight years. In the two years prior to diagnosis she would routinely place her phone in her bra while jogging 3-4 times per week. During this time period she would use a global positioning system (GPS) application on her cellular phone to determine her location while jogging. MRI demonstrated at least six suspicious lesions spanning a length of 8cm in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. Mastectomy specimen showed extensive DCIS with multifocal invasion. A 5mm metastasis was found in one sentinel lymph node.

1.4. Case 4

A 39-year-old female presented with three palpable breast masses in the area of cellular phone contact with her right breast. She had been placing her cellular phone in her bra while commuting and using a Bluetooth device to talk for hours each day for the past ten years. MRI demonstrated multiple mass-like and tubular areas of enhancement essentially involving the entire upper right breast from the 11 to 1 o’clock position. Mastectomy showed four separate invasive ductal carcinomas ranging from 1 to 3cm in size with 10cm of DCIS. Two of nine lymph nodes were positive for metastatic disease. Pathology of the insitu and invasive ductal carcinomas observed in all four cases shows striking similarity, and the representative histological figures are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2





Figure 2

Representative histology of all four cases. There is extensive DCIS with cribriform configuration (arrow). The multiple foci of invasion (arrowhead) occur in between the DCIS (magnification ×100).

Go to:

  1. Discussion

The majority of breast cancer occurs sporadically in postmenopausal women with no family history of the disease. Breast cancer occurring in women in their 20s and 30s is uncommon, accounting for fewer than 5% of all breast cancer cases, and is often associated with a genetic predisposition [1]. These four cases of young women with sporadic, multifocal breast cancer bring forth the possibility of a relationship between prolonged direct skin contact with cellular phones and the development of breast cancer. To date there is insufficient laboratory or clinical evidence to establish a definite relationship between exposures to the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from cellular devices and the risk of developing cancer. Some studies have suggested that such a relationship exists, but larger and more robust studies have not been confirmatory [26]. Nonetheless, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiofrequency waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, the form of EMR that cellular devices emit, as a possible human carcinogen [7].

Cellular phones emit EMR in the microwave spectrum and produce both a thermal and nonthermal effect. The EMR emitted from cellular phones has insufficient energy to ionize molecules and is not capable of producing direct DNA damage as occurs with diagnostic and therapeutic radiation [2]. The primary thermal effect from cellular phones is the heating of tissue, which has controversial clinical significance [2, 810]. EMR emitted from cellular devices couples with the body to create currents within the tissue, potentially having an effect on cellular microenvironments [9]. A recent study using fluorodeoxyglucose injections and positron emission tomography concluded that exposure to radiofrequency waves within parts of the brain closest to the cellular phone antenna resulted in increased levels of glucosemetabolism, but the clinical significance of these findings is unknown [11].

One of the first clinical reports of a possible carcinogenic effect of exposure to EMR from cellular phones suggested that cellular phone users were at increased risk of developing brain cancers [5]. The largest and longest study of cellular phone use to date is the INTERPHONE study which included data from 13 countries [6]. This retrospective study could not identify a significant increase in risk of gliomas or meningiomas with the use of cellular phones. There were, however, indications of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The INTERPHONE study concluded that the possible effects of long-term, heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation. A more recent meta-analysis showed an association between gliomas and acoustic neuromas in ipsilateral users (using the phone on one side of the head most often or always) who were also heavy users of cellular phones, compared to nonusers [3]. Moreover, the risk of cancer was found highest in people with longest exposure and exposure that began before the age of 20.

The issue of cellular phone exposure on male fertility has also been reported [12]. Both laboratory and clinical studies have demonstrated alterations in fertility, motility, and morphology in sperm exposed to EMR from cell phones. Similar reports of clinical responses resulting from exposure to cellular phone EMR have been made for changes in the blood brain barrier and cognition, but attempts to confirm these findings have been inconsistent [1315].

The data collected from the majority of the aforementioned cellular phone studies was from the early 2000s. Since that time, cellular phone usage has continued to increase, with over 303 million subscribers to cellular phone service in the United States alone in 2011 and almost six billion subscribers worldwide [16]. This is triple the number of reported users in 2000. Children and young adults are now more likely to be using mobile devices and are among some of the heaviest users [17]. This group is potentially at greatest risk of harm from EMR, as dividing tissue, such as that occurring in prepubertal breast buds, is more prone to the adverse effects of radiation [18].

Current cellular phone safety regulations were established in the United States by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1996 [19]. The regulations were based on studies which measured the level of EMR penetrating the plexiglass head of a simulated 200 pound man. The studies were designed to measure the specific absorption rate (SAR) which is a measure of the rate at which energy is absorbed by the body when exposed to cellular phone EMR. The FCC set an exposure limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram of tissue. Any cellular phone functioning below this limit is considered to be safe. The duration of exposure during a SAR test is only 30 minutes and does not reflect the total amount of EMR exposure consumers experience with more prolonged exposure. Furthermore, FCC guidelines do not address the issue of risks associated with direct skin contact with cellularphones. This is a critical issue, as the long-term consequence of the direct thermal effect of EMR on developing breast tissue for extended duration has not been documented. In addition, unlike older cellular devices, smartphones have the ability to regularly transmit information, sending and receiving an intermittent signal even when the user of the device is not actively handling it. The accumulation of this passive exposure to EMR is also not well studied.

Although the FCC has not addressed the issue of skin contact, cellular phone manufacturers typically place a warning in their manuals stating that direct contact with the skin should be avoided. For example, the iPhone 4 user manual advises to keep the phone 1.5cm or more away from the body [20]. Similarly, the safety manual for the BlackBerry Bold Smartphone recommends using an approved holster to carry the phone and to keep the phone 15mm away from the body when the device is transmitting [21].

This series of four young women with cellular phone-related breast cancer is noteworthy, but caution must be exercised in drawing any conclusion from our small sample. Millions of women are using cellular devices, and it is predictable that rare events will occur. From this small case series, one cannot infer causality but can only consider association. Additionally, no data is available on the number of women who place their cellular phones in contact with their breast and do not develop breast cancer. Finally, the duration of exposure and the location of placement of the cell phone in direct contact with the breast are subject to recall bias.

However, the unusual pattern of multifocal cancers and extensive DCIS occurring in areas of direct cell phone contact on the breast is noteworthy. Each patient had multifocal cancer, but the tumors were all clustered within the area of breast tissue directly underlying the cellular device, and nowhere else. Furthermore, from a pathological point of view, the morphological features of insitu and invasive ductal carcinomas are interesting. All of the carcinomas exhibited similar, if not identical, histology characterized by a mixture of tubular and solid patterns with identical nuclear morphology and grade. All were estrogen and progesterone positive but Her2 negative, luminal-type carcinomas. The ductal and lobular units away from the areas of cellular phone contact showed no significant histological changes. While the cancers appear to be centralized to the region of the breast exposed to the cellular devices, they still possess the ability to metastasize as evidenced by three patients in this series with lymph node metastasis and one with bone metastasis (Case 2). Although the numbers of reported cases here are too small to have a scientific conclusion, the findings are intriguing and support the notion that direct cellular phone contact may be associated with the development of breast carcinoma.

There are fundamental differences between the available literature on cellular devices associated with cancer development and the four cases presented here. First and foremost, unlike the brain which is protected by the skull as well as a spatial distance from the cellular device, each patient here had direct contact between their device and their breast. The effect of EMR on tissues is directly related to the distance between the body and the source [2]. No study has yet to evaluate this direct effect. Second, the period of exposure was prolonged, over many years. Patients from earlier studies in general had a shorter duration of exposure to cellular EMR compared to those in our series. Lastly, it has been demonstrated that the effect of EMR on children can be several times higher than that of adults [22]. It is possible that the growing, dividing breast tissue that occurs during puberty may be particularly vulnerable to cellular phone EMR, accounting in part for at least two of the cases reported here (Cases 1 and 2).

Cellular phone use continues to expand rapidly, especially among young adults. Until more data becomes available, efforts should be made to encourage cellular phone users to follow the recommendations of mobile device manufacturers and to avoid skin contact. Further research is urgently needed in this area. In our practice, we have started to incorporate frequency of cellular phone use and placement location into part of our routine patient-history documentation. Physicians should document this behavior and also inform their patients that, until sufficient safety data becomes available, prolonged skin contact with cellular devices should be avoided.

Go to:


  1. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2011-2012. Atlanta, Ga, USA: American Cancer Society; 2011.
  2. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, et al. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The Lancet Oncology. 2011;12(7):624–626. [PubMed]
  3. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology. 2013;20(2):85–110. [PubMed]
  4. Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, Boice JD, Jr., McLaughlin JK, Johansen C. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2006;98(23):1707–1713. [PubMed]
  5. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects. International Journal of Oncology. 2011;38(5):1465–1474. [PubMed]
  6. Cardis E. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010;39(3):675–694.dyq079 [PubMed]
  7. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic. Vol. 102. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2011.
  8. Bartsch H, Bartsch C, Seebald E, et al. Chronic exposure to a GSM-like signal (mobile phone) does not stimulate the development of DMBA-induced mammary tumors in rats: results of three consecutive studies. Radiation Research. 2002;157(2):183–190. [PubMed]
  9. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003;100(2):13761–13766. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Acar GO, Yener HM, Savrun FK, Kalkan T, Bayrak I, Enver O. Thermal effects of mobile phones on facial nerves and surrounding soft tissue. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(3):559–562. [PubMed]
  11. Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang G-J, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2011;305(8):808–813. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertility and Sterility. 2008;89(1):124–128. [PubMed]
  13. Agarwal A, Singh A, Hamada A, Kesari K. Cell phones and male infertility: a review of recent innovations in technology and consequences. International Brazilian Journal of Urology. 2011;37(4):432–454. [PubMed]
  14. Nittby H, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson BRR, Salford LG. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. Pathophysiology. 2009;16(2-3):103–112. [PubMed]
  15. Luria R, Eliyahu I, Hareuveny R, Margaliot M, Meiran N. Cognitive effects of radiation emitted by cellular phones: the influence of exposure side and time. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30(3):198–204. [PubMed]
  16. The World in 2011. ICT facts and figures. June 6th, 2013,
  17. Söderqvist F, Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Ownership and use of wireless telephones: a population-based study of Swedish children aged 7–14 years. BMC Public Health. 2007;7, article 105 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Ng AK, Travis LB. Radiation therapy and breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2009;7:1121–1128. [PubMed]
  19. Radio frequency safety. June 7th, 2013,
  20. iPhone 4 important product information guide. June 7th, 2013,
  21. Safety and product information. Blackberry Bold 9900/9930 Smartphones. June 7th, 2013,–1334716-0615045228-001-US.pdf.
  22. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, De Salles AA, Han Y-Y, Herberman RB, Davis DL. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2012;31(1):34–51. [PubMed]



New Research and the TH3 Epidemic

This article was written by William C. Amalu, DC, DABCT, DIACT, FIACT

Before we dive into the reasoning behind why we are seeing so many TH3 thermograms, let’s review the physiology that causes these infrared images.

Estrogen is a powerful steroid that, in the breast, primarily acts upon the ductal cells. The hormone causes the ductal cells to grow and multiply. Normal levels of estrogen (estrogen in balance with progesterone) cause normal ductal cell changes. Unopposed estrogen (lack of balance resulting in increased levels of estrogen) causes an increase in ductal cell growth and multiplication (ductal hyperplasia). This stimulation of the ductal cells causes an increase in cellular metabolism. In order to sustain this cellular growth and multiplication, the cells demand more oxygen and metabolites (food). This causes an increase in the size and number of blood vessels in order to bring in nutrients and remove waste. The end result is an infrared image that has a symmetrical appearance of a specific vascular pattern originating from the main arterial supply and venous drainage of the breast.

Estrogen plays a major role in the pathogenesis of breast cancer via the uptake into the cell through the mechanism of the estrogen receptor (ER). Its association with many of the epidemiological risk factors for breast carcinoma (e.g. age of menarche, first child, breast feeding, menopause, and the use of oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy) is well known. The pathogenesis of estrogen as it relates to the cause of breast cancer is through two mechanisms: 1.) The aromatization (breakdown) of estrogen in the breast causing carcinogenic byproducts and, 2.) Direct stimulation of pre-cancerous and cancerous cellular growth (cancerous ductal cells).

Some studies suggest that the use of soy and flax will block the ER, thus decreasing the risk of breast cancer. Unfortunately, if the key (estrogen, soy, flax, etc.) fits the lock (ER receptor on the cell membrane) it may open the door to the effects on the cell. How would we know if the ER was either blocked or triggered? Perhaps we can observe the effects via MIR. It is well established that the effects of various hormones on the breast can be detected by MIR. The infrared vascular display produced by increased levels of estrogen, the hormones of pregnancy, and the hormonal interactions during lactation are well established and understood. When unopposed estrogen is treated, and hormonal balance is restored in the breast, the infrared display is returned to normal. We see this same effect when breast cancer patients are given Tamoxifen. More than 75% of all breast cancers are ER positive. This means that in these patients estrogen promotes the growth of their cancer. Tamoxifen is classified as an ER antagonist, it blocks the receptor so that circulating estrogen cannot bind and activate the cancer cells. When comparing the initial breast cancer images of these patients to the post-surgical images we not only see the resolution of the malignant neoangiogensis, but the background evidence of estrogen dominance has also resolved due to the patient taking Tamoxifen. We also have evidence of many variations on this theme (e.g. post-surgical images before Tamoxifen use) still resulting in the normalization of the estrogen dominant images due to Tamoxifen. Now that we have established that MIR has the ability to detect the effects of unopposed estrogen, and the positive effects of treatment (e.g progesterone, Tamoxifen), how does this relate to phytoestrogens and xenoestrogens?

If, as it has been postulated, soy and other phytoestrogens such as flax act as ER receptor blockers, we should be able to clearly observe these effects with MIR. Unfortunately, what we observe in the vast majority of women is the opposite. Soy and flax, but soy to a much great extent, affects the breast in the same way as estrogen. And again, how do we know this? When women take these phytoestrogens their MIR images change from normal to the vascular pattern seen with unopposed estrogen; and when they stop taking theses phytoestrogens their images return to normal. What this is demonstrating is that these phytoestrogens are binding with the ER and causing the same direct ductal cell stimulation, and resulting increase in vascularity, that estrogen does. Many women who stop taking soy will also tell you that their breasts become less sore, tender, and fibrocystic to the touch. This is also one of the same things women will tell you when stopping medications that left them estrogen imbalanced. Studies on phytoestrogens, especially on soy, also support these findings. It is unfortunate that the media, and the soy boards, push only the studies that promote things their way.

Now that we have a handle on how the physiology of the breast is affected, and how this affects the MIR images, let’s discuss what this has led to over time.

Some of you may have been noticing that over the past few years there has been a definite rise in the number of breast images that are being graded as TH3s. Along with this has been a steady decrease in TH1s. This has also been observed by other thermologists. We have been discussing the possible reasons for this and have put forth a plausible reason. A steady increase in use of soy in the diet, along with xenoestrogens and the increased use of flax seed products, is causing two things to occur in the breast: 1.) Direct stimulation of ductal cell growth and multiplication, and, 2.) A “fertile field” of open vasculature in the breast as a byproduct of the effects of these “other” estrogens on the metabolism of the ductal cells. In this environment, atypical cells (pre-cancer), early stage DCIS, or other breast cancers may receive direct stimulation promoting growth (e.g. ER positive cancers) along with taking advantage of the resulting increase in blood flow to maintain growth. This, in turn, may be creating the vascular asymmetries and hyperthermic findings we are seeing in all these TH3s.

Phytoestrogens in the diet, primarily soy, has increased at an alarming rate. It is becoming very difficult to find foods that do not contain soy. As such, the public is being forced to eat ever increasing amounts of soy without their knowledge. Taking this into consideration, and adding deliberate uses of soy in the diet (tofu, soy milk, etc.), may be causing the increased number of TH3 gradings via the pathway mentioned above. To this can be added xenoestrogens found in make-up, shampoo, sunscreens, and many other hygiene products and chemicals in our home and office environments. Considering these exposures as a whole could account for the significant rise in estrogen dominant images seen over the past 15 years. In 1995 we used to see approximately 45-50% of women scanned with estrogen dominant images; the number now approaches 95%. The resulting direct stimulation of cellular growth, and increase in blood flow, may be pushing more and more thermograms into the TH3 range.

A new piece of the puzzle is also emerging. I recommend that you do a search on the net for GMO (genetically modified) foods and pesticides. There is brand new research out showing strong evidence that GMO foods, especially combined with common pesticides, causes cancer. Due to these findings a great number of countries around the world are now refusing to purchase GMO crops from other countries. They are taking this very seriously.

Many of the pesticides alone have been found to have powerful estrogenic effects. And even more data is coming out about certain regions using powerful herbicides to kill plants encroaching on roadsides. These pesticides and herbicides are very powerful xenoestrogens; so much so that the sex of fish, alligators, and other aquatic animals are being altered to female when rain runoff takes these pesticides and herbicides into lakes. These are powerful endocrine disrupters.

Add these new xenoestrogen findings to the known dietary intake of soy and we have a recipe for an epidemic of TH3s (See the paper published below. This is only one example of many papers on this subject). The breast is being bombarded by so many outside estrogen sources that it makes sense that we are seeing what we are seeing. Keep in mind that these xenoestrogens have an affinity for fat tissue and can build up in the fat tissue over time. I now understand why so many women over 50 are showing thermograms that have the vascular appearance of pregnancy, and sometimes lactation!

As a warning signal, these TH3 images may be considered the best news for women. These women now have a chance to make changes and possibly head off a future cancer at a point in time that is extremely early. We have the technology to warn women of this situation and alert their doctors to this problem. I truly believe that we have the finest technology available at this time to play the most important role in prevention.

Isn’t it incredible, we were seeing all of these metabolic breast changes long before the possible causes were found. Thermography is the proverbial canary in the mine!

Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Sep;59:129-36. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2013.05.057. Epub 2013 Jun 10.

Guest blog for ZRT Laboratory – Breast Cancer Awareness to Action: Prevention is the Cure

I was recently invited to guest blog for ZRT Laboratory, a CLIA certified diagnostic laboratory and the leader in hormone and wellness testing.

October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” with a flurry of activity directed towards “Race for the Cure,” pink ribbons on posters and products, and people on street corners with butterfly nets to accept donations to defeat breast cancer. Yet with all this activity over the past 30 years we are no closer to any cure, and breast cancer rates have escalated.

According to the National Cancer Institute, incidences of breast cancer in the US have risen during the past thirty years from 1 in 30, to 1 in 8 women life time risk (1). Agencies that track these statistics are concerned that in the next 10 years it may reach 1 in five. In Oregon where I practice, we have consistently been among the top five states for breast cancer incidence, and now rank second highest per capita. This is an epidemic!

So, why aren’t we looking more closely at prevention, and considering what a woman CAN DO to reduce her risk of breast cancer or its recurrence? Racing for the Cure is simply not working!

Read the entire article at ZRT Laboratory

Holistic Physician Dr. Brownstein urges women to consider thermography

There are many wise doctors and care providers out there who are questioning the traditional health care advice that women are given. One of these wise doctors is a Dr. Brownstein, a holistic family physician at the Medical Director of the Center for Holistic Medicine in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

We just discovered his new blog post about mammograms and urge you all to read it. Dr. Brownstein is commenting on a recent Canadian study that shows that mammograms do not result in less breast cancer deaths. He urges women to do their research make up their own minds, and consider thermography. Here is what he says, in part:

“There is no question that mammograms pick up abnormalities in the breasts at a much earlier stage as compared to the physical exam–palpation of the breast.   However, as the Canadian studies showed, early diagnosis of breast cancer has not translated into improved mortality rates.  A similar situation occurs in men with prostate testing via the PSA test–early diagnosis does not change the course of the illness for the vast majority men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Keep in mind that mammograms are associated with adverse effects.  Mammograms utilize ionizing radiation which is a known to cause cancer.  In fact, there is a one percent increase risk of developing breast cancer for each mammogram a woman receives.  That means, after 10 years, the risk could be as  high as ten percent.  Some think the risk is higher.

What should you do?  Don’t blindly follow anyone’s recommendation, mine included.  Do your research. Just because a doctor says that a yearly mammogram is needed doesn’t  make it so.  Thermography provides a non-toxic way to image the breast using heat.  Since it does not expose the breast tissue to ionizing radiation, thermography should be an option.  More information about thermography can be found at:

Final thoughts:  The war on breast cancer has been a dismal failure.  Presently, we have one in seven U.S. women suffering with breast cancer.  The best that the Powers-That-Be can offer us, after spending trillions of our scarce health care dollars, is the screening mammogram– which has never been shown to lower mortality rates.   I say we need to refocus our efforts.  We need to spend our money figuring out what is causing one in seven women to have breast breast cancer.  We need less money spent on diagnosing cancer and more spent on how to prevent it.  What can you do?  Make your views known.  Congress will listen to us if we speak loudly enough.  And, finally, don’t donate to organizations that are not trying to figure out why so many of us are getting cancer.  These same organizations are busy, in the case of breast cancer, promoting screening mammograms.”

Read the entire post at this link:


Reduce Your Risk of Breast Cancer through Nutrition

Perhaps some of the most powerful testimony for the success of the Proactive Breast Wellness program is the section on our site of “Before and After” images. The PBW program offers an easy-to-follow comprehensive plan to improve nutrition, make life style changes, achieve hormone balance, help you identify and avoid environmental toxins that can impact our health. Making these changes will improve the health of your whole family !

In my daily practice I have worked directly with women who have been concerned about their breast health. I was able to take a thermal picture (there’s more about thermal breast imaging or thermography on the website,, of some of my patients both before they began following the PBW program and  after they completed the program. The results are striking.

Breast Health improved through nutrition.Breast health improved by nutrition

The dark blue color in the After image shows that these breasts are cooler, less inflamed, and less tender to the patient.Oregon has the second highest breast cancer rate per capita in the US. It appears that is because Oregon and  Washington had been the testing ground for Agent Orange since the early 1970’s and the states has continued  herbicide and pesticide use for years in the timber and agricultural industries. Check out what the infrared images  show if the woman eats organically versus women who had been toxically exposed to these chemicals.

There are more examples of how this program has changed breast tissue. Please take a look at them. Also, view the “Protect Your Breasts” section on our site, which has more information in PDF form about how herbicides and pesticides affect our breast tissue.

Science has shown that family history may only have a 7% to 9%  impact  on a woman  future risk of developing breast cancer,  while lifestyle and environmental factors account for the remaining approximately 91% to 93%. This means that you can take concrete action to begin protecting your breast health, as these “Before and After” images  have shown. You can even improve your breast health, starting today ! Visit our store to see what resources you can get started with.