1If you are a woman of 40 years and over, your doctor has certainly recommended a mammography screening to you.However, more and more women are questioning this recommendation, since there seems to be an evidence-based gap – meaning there is a gap between the scientific evidence and the medical practice. Put into laymen’s terms, what doctors recommend is NOT supported by scientific findings.

Mounting scientific evidence demonstrates that mammography is unreliable, inaccurate and even dangerous.


A 2001 Cochrane review published in Lancet states:

“The currently available reliable evidence does not show a survival benefit of mass screening for breast cancer (and the evidence is inconclusive for breast cancer mortality). Women, clinicians and policy makers should consider these findings carefully when they decide whether or not to attend or support screening programs.” [i]

American College of Physicians concluded that for every 10,000 younger women screened for 10 years, 5 are likely to avoid death from breast cancer. But about 600 to 2,000 women will have a false positive result that requires them to undergo a biopsy, according to a 2009 analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine. And 10 to 50 healthy women will be overdiagnosed and subjected to unnecessary cancer therapy: they will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy and sometimes chemotherapy.[ii]


A Canadian longitudinal study  of 25 years published 2 months ago similarly concluded that: “In conclusion, our data show that annual mammography does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care in the community. The data suggest that the value of mammography screening should be reassessed.”[iii]

In 2006, Cochrane Review again warned against mammography, based on 6 trials involving approximately half a million women. Here’s the conclusion drawn:

“..for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.” [iv]

Thus, 20,000 mammographies  will be needed to prolong the life of just 1 woman, whereas, 10 will be getting “treatments,” such as chemotherapy, radiation and mastectomy. What the meta-analysis does not tell us is how many of these 10 women will lose their lives in 5 or 10 years.

Those who are genetically predisposed to breast cancer with a genetic mutations of BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 and who have had ionizing radiation on their  chest, such as chest X-ray or mammography, before age 30 had 90% increase in breast cancers.[v]

A Swedish study of 60,000 women revealed that about 70% of mammographically detected tumors were not tumors at all.  Moreover, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.[vi]

Between 30-50% of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through x-ray mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS). DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or “stage zero breast cancer,” with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition.

According to a 13 year Canadian longitudinal study early detection of  DCIS does not reduce mortality.[vii] Either they are aggressive and cannot be cured or are slow-growing and unaffected by early detection.

In addition, 80% of all DCIS will never become invasive if left untreated.[viii]

In 2009 the US Preventive Task Services revised its recommendations for women from age 40-49 and downgraded mammography as a screening tool from “B” to a “C”. The task services stopped recommending the routine annual screening for this age-group. Why… because in younger women the benefits do not justify the unintended harms. Based on 8 clinical trials, in the age group from 40-49 who get screened the breast cancer rate is roughly about 29 per 10,000, compared with 31 per 10,000 among those who do not get annual screening. [ix]

Harms of Mammography

Now, mounting data from most reputable scientific sources has established that the false-positives and the false negatives of mammograms make them notoriously unreliable. Thus, if overall, mammography is not a high standard diagnostic tool, is it harmful?

Some facts:

  • How many of you have been assured that mammogram radiation is low dose and trivial and is similar to chest X-ray or being under the sun for an hour or flying from east coast to west. A mammogram delivers about 1,000 times more radiation than a chest x-ray. The standard of taking four films of each breast, 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) focused on each breast rather than the entire chest results in 1,000-fold greater exposure.[x]
  • Mammography entails tight and painful compression of the breast tissue,
  • National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement reveals that Americans’ exposure to radiation has increased more than 600 percent over the last three decades. Most of that increase has come from patients’ exposure to radiation through medical imaging scans such as CT scans and mammograms.[xi]
  • Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. The increase in incidence for women under the age of 40 has gone up over 3000%. [xii]
  • If a woman has yearly mammograms from age 55 to 75, she will receive a minimum of 20 rads of radiation. Women surviving the blast in Hiroshima absorbed 35 rads.
  • Despite the aggressive mammography screenings and mega billions of dollars of expenditure “90% of women who develop breast carcinoma discover the tumors themselves.”[xiii]
  • The National Cancer Institute released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies.

Taking into consideration the evidence against mammography, the Swiss Medical Board became the first medical body to abolish mammography screening just recently:[xiv]


Why is Mammography Still Recommended?


When In 2009 the US Preventive Task Services stopped recommending the routine annual screening for women from age 40-49 and downgraded mammography, and gave it a grade  “C” as a screening tool it

brought up outrage in many government health agencies, such as American Cancer Society, and private ones, such as Komen for Cure. Even cutting-edge university such as UCLA, recommends screening for age 40-49, despite the scientific evidence that the pre-menopausal is particularly damaged by radiation. But why insist on a screening that has grade “C” and term it as the “Golden Standard?” It is because too much profit is at stake. Studies show that the “advocacy groups and governmental organizations are information poor and severely biased in favour of screening.”[xv]

4Who are The Main Benefactors of Mammography?

  • AstraZeneca-Astra AB -maker of the drug Tamoxifen used in breast cancer patients
  • DuPont – makers of mammography films
  • G.E – makers of mammography machines
  • Monsanto
  • American Cancer Society
  • National Cancer Institute
  • Susan G. Komen for Cure – cause marketer and organizer of pink ribbon fundraisers


That is why every medical practice should go through a scrutiny by each one of us. We as consumers have to be more vigilant about our own health and not become Guinea pigs.

Why Thermography?

Safe First Line Option

Many physicians recommend thermography as a safe first line option, vs. yearly mammography screening.

What is Thermography? Breast thermography is a diagnostic procedure that images the breasts using highly resolute and sensitive infrared cameras to produce diagnostic-quality images. Breast thermography has been researched for over 30 years, and over 800 peer-reviewed breast thermography studies exist in the index-medicus.

The body’s radiant infrared energy results in images that can detect physiological changes in breasts long before a mammogram can.

Thermography vs. Mammography


Consider these facts:

  • Mammography detects breast cancer when cancer cells reach to 4 billion (on average it takes 6-10 years)
  • Thermography can detect breast cancer when the cells are around 400 (on average within 2 years).
  • Breast thermography has an average sensitivity and specificity of 90%.
  • Thermography, a technique that only misses 5-10% of cancers and comes with a low incidence of false positives.[xvi]
  • When used as part of a multimodal approach (clinical examination + mammography thermography) 95% of early stage cancers will be detected. [xvii]

How does thermography work? Angiogenesis, is a process of the development of new blood vessels to sustain the growth of the multiplying tumor cells. In other words, cancers create their own, private blood supply system to grow. The angeogenetic process will result in hot spots which thermographic imaging will detect.

Thermography is Safe:

Thermography is particularly safe for younger women. It is even safe for pregnant or nursing women, since there is no radiation.

No Pain:

Every woman who has undergone mammography knows that it is excruciatingly painful, due to compression of the breasts. With thermography there is no pain, since there is no mechanical pressure. It is just like a photo shot of your body.

Choosing the Right Doctor:

Choose a doctor that is familiar about the latest scientific evidence on mammography, its drawbacks and limitations. Question your doctor if you feel that he or she is simply practicing with inertia of medical culture vs. scientific evidence. Choose a doctor that has integrative or holistic approach to health, is open to see your perspective and tends to read new evidence. Do NOT get intimidated if your doctor tries to make you guilty or accuses you of being negligent about your health. Ask them what you learned in this article. Print the scientific evidence along with references and take it with you to your next visit. Mammography has limited value and should be used with discretion.

haikProject recommends thermography screening to women as a safe and reliable method of first line of screening.

For further information please call:  818-392-HAIK (4245)



[i] Olsen, Ole and Gotzsche, Peter C. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. The Lancet, Vol. 358, October 20, 2001, pp. 1340-42

[ii] Mandelblatt, S. J. et al. 2009. Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms. Annals of Internal Medicine. American College of Physicians. 17 November, Vol 151, No. 10

[iii] Miller, B A. et. al Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.BMJ 2014; 348 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g366 (Published 11 February 2014)
[iv] Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø 2100 Denmark. 18;(4):CD001877.

[v] Pijpe A, et al “Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK)” BMJ 2012; 345: e5660.

[vi] http://snd.gu.se/en/catalogue/study/618

[vii] Miller A.B., et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study – 2: 14-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(18): 1490-1499, 2000.

[viii] Baum, M Epidemiology versus scaremongering: The case for humane interpretation of statistics and breast cancer. Breast J. 6(5): 331-334, 2000

[ix] U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):716-26, W-236.

[x] Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D. LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2 MacMillan, New York, 1998

[xi] http://www.thefullwiki.org/National_Council_on_Radiation_Protection_and_Measurements

[xii] Goldberg B. Alternative Medicine , Celestial Arts; 2nd Updated edition (June 6, 2002) page 588

[xiii] Ross, W. S Crusade: The Official History of the American Cancer Society. P. 96 Arbor House, New York, 1987

[xiv] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24738641

[xv] Jorgensen, KJ and Gotzsche, PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. British Medical Journal, Vol. 328, January 17, 2004, pp. 148-53

[xvi] Kennedy DA, Lee T, Seely D. “A comparative review of thermography as a breast cancer screening technique.” Integrative Cancer Therapies,2009 Mar;8(1):9-16.

Gautherie M, Gros CM.. “Breast thermography and cancer risk prediction.” Pol Arch Med Wewn March 201

[xvii] Lafreniere R, Ashkar FS, Ketcham AS. Infrared light scanning of the breast. Am Surg. 1986 Mar;52(3):123-8.