Is thermography better than mammograms for early breast cancer detection?


Thermography is the new early detection method. Check it out.

Damian / Originally commented on Cancer prevention and treatment may be the same thing


Unfortunately thermography alone may have a sensitivity of only about 83% in detecting breast cancer (according to the latest review). A combination of mammography and thermography may bring it as high as 95%, though, so while there may be a role for the technology, thermography alone is condemned as a substitute for mammography by the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Mammograms and all other early detection methods are, by definition of course, too late in that they don’t prevent cancer. And sadly, in many cases, may even be too late to significantly alter the course of the disease. Please see, for example, the latest open access review on the subject, The Benefits and Harms of Screening for Cancer with a Focus on Breast Screening.” As you’ll note even in just the abstract, regular breast self‐exams do not appear to reduce breast cancer mortality, the effects of physician breast examination are unknown, and it’s not even clear that screening for breast cancer with mammography, thermography, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging does more good than harm on a population level because of the need to balance the cases in which there is benefit with the number of unnecessary biopsies and surgeries.

I still encourage women to follow the guidelines of the USPSTF, but ideally the focus would be on primary prevention, meaning preventing the emergence of the tumor in the first place and slowing it’s growth. Please see my blog post Breast Cancer and Diet for a review of my older videos on the subject and some the videos I’ve done since on the subject of breast cancer prevention and survival:

Image credit: Food and Drug Administration /

  • MikeZP
  • billyoung

    Dr Greger, isn’t it true that Mammography can only find existing tomurs and that thermography can identify pre-cancerous up to 10 yrs before it becomes cancerous? Isn’t that a thermography advantage?

  • jimmy

    as a so-called professional physician you must know that thermography is much more sensitive than mammograms and with out the side affects of high risk of cancer that mammograms have,.as for susan g komen, you should be ashamed of your self.this is a fraudulent and misleading organization that takes advantage of American women at a time in their life when they really need truthfull information,you have lost all of your credibility,shame on you,at this point I suspect that you are nothing more than a con artist,or just another shill for the American cancer society

    • 4Baccurate

      Exactly. When you seek medical care, you need to step carefully because it is a minefield as practiced today.

  • darrenclair

    Well, although it is not perfect, an 83% detection rate by thermography is better than mammography’s record and without the harmful effects. True, it is probably best to get both -once, and from then on follow with thermograms for the best we an do at this time. I do agree, prevention is key and women should follow your advise on how to use their diet to optimize their health and reduce their chances for breast cancer.

    • 4Baccurate

      One of the problems with mammography, besides exposing breast gene dna to radiation, potential to burst cancerous cysts causing metastasis, and needless mutilation biopsies and surgeries, is that it entirely misses deadly tumors in dense breast tissue… yielding false negatives. Extremely dangerous to lead women to think they are in competent, scientifically-based do-no-harm hands. Chances of survival are greater if you do the vegan + broccoli sprouts + cabbage + exercise route than to trust your precious life to this clownocracy.

  • 4Baccurate

    Two (2) articles in the journal Medical Genetics: (a) that there are breast-cancer genes besides BRCA’s (b) mammogram radiation alters the DNA of breast cancer genes. Which facts, in addition to the inflexibility of the Marin General Hospital breast cancer clinic business, and fearmongering of local OB-GYN(s) may partly explain the unusual prevalence of breast cancer in affluent Marin County, where women can afford to go for yearly mammograms. MGH’s breast clinic and the obgyn refused to allow me a breast MRI unless I submitted to a mammogram. They are definitely out of the pre-scientific era… Go for the thermogram + ultrasound—- Available in Oakland with a nurse practitioner’s order. “Conventional medicine” claims to catch Breast cancer early, putting women through fear, dna exposure to radiation, biopsies for calcifications which are normal, lumpectomies and worse mutilations with little to no scientific basis.. is big business.

  • 4Baccurate

    From these two articles in the journal, Medical Genetics, and other facts listed below, one can reasonably conclude that repeated exposure of breast cancer gene DNA to low-level radiation brings about alteration from which the DNA this specific class of genes cannot recover.
    “Is Mammography Indicated for Women With Defective BRCA Genes?
    Implications of Recent Scientific Advances for the Diagnosis, Treatment,
    and Prevention of Breast Cancer, [ B. Friedenson, Med Gen Med E., 2000]
    posits that exposure to mammogram radiation brings with it oncogenic
    changes to BRCA.

    And the second, “Genes Other Than BRCA 1 and
    BRVA 2 Involved in Breast Cancer Susceptibility [Journal of Med Genetics
    202;39; 225-242 doi; 10.11/mg.39.4.225, M.M. de Jong et al.]
    1. Mammography does not characterize deadly tumors in dense breast tissue;
    2. Mammography does not characterize tumors in any breast tissue unless 1 cm in diameter;
    3. Women with dense breast tissue more likely to have a higher rate of tumors
    Also: I found bare-faced lies as though reading from the same script, from people who make their living using x-rays for breast cancer screening, asserting that mammography saves lives (see Dr. Goetzsche’s report, Cochrane Institute)—- and “You get more radiation on a plane trip” and “or a day at the beach”—- implying that
    mammography saves lives (zero point zero 3 percent?) — Much coercion being used— fear tactics and deception… Mutilating women, subjecting them to radiation and chemotherapy and painful biopsies and lumpectomies and mastectomies on the basis of false positives. Deception and pre-scientific age practices undermines respect and trust for these people profiting from anguishing women and their families for no justifiable reason. I’m relying on a vegan diet with broccoli sprouts and flaxseeds.