. Retrieved from ? url=? direct=true&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.247697040&site=eds-live&scope=site
The focus of the mammogram vs thermogram turf war centers on breast cancer. But techniques with thermograms are able to spot markers that are precursors to other cancers and allow natural preventative measures that mainstream oncologists are not trained for and/or don’t want to be. But not all medical insurance providers will shell out the $200 or less for a breast thermogram. Mammograms cost only slightly less and are uniformly covered by both private and government medical insurers. Avoiding mainstream oncology’s highly profitable options for treatment may be a major reason why mainstream oncologists constantly assert that thermography cannot detect tumors and is not a bonafide early detection device. It hampers radiologists’ revenue as well. Although the FDA has approved mammogram machinery and technology, even as an adjunct to mammograms, both the CDC and FDA agree with the same assertions as oncologists that thermograms are not valid substitutes for mammograms with breast cancer screening. Thermography doesn’t always create a tumor picture the way mammograms appear. But mammograms don’t always detect some types of tumors and often mistake non- cancerous lesions as tumors. Instead of undergoing chemotherapy or surgery unnecessarily, better diet and supplement choices could easily keep those lesions from becoming cancerous. Breast cancer cells take around five to eight years to develop enough for mammogram tumor detection. Just in time for costly, profitable treatments. They also do not compress the breast tissue like mammograms. This compression that takes place during mammograms can cause cancer cells to break off create a malignant spread through the blood stream.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 7 pages?
- Fall '19
- Prostate cancer