Return to Cancer Page

<--Return to Right To Know


Thermograms are diagnostic exams that do not include xray mammogram(which are known to cause cancer)

Thermography Instead of Mammography


Safe, Effective, Cost Effective, Peace of Mind, non Invasive, insurance covered body and breast exam

Call Dr. Lauren Swerdloff, MD., Inc, DITI of Santa Monica

Board Certified Family Physician, Specializing in Integrative Family Medicine, Thermal Imaging and Women's Health

2021 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 710E, Santa Monica,  CA 90404

310 829 5189, Fax 310 829 5942

Please tell her Shelley Kramer sent you.


Thermal Imaging is uniquely able to detect the very beginnings of angiogenesis. The pooling of blood and the tiny vessels are invisible to mammography. Not only does mammography have a 20% to 40% margin of error, it can very well aggravate or even cause cancer. Thermography is based on the principle of infrared sensors and converting it to temperature. It has a very high resolution imager, which is part of a complete workstation that has the ability to capture multiple frames of high-resolution date over a precisely timed sequence. As the cold air envelopes the person, stress is created on the sympathetic nervous system, which responds by decreasing the flow of blood to the surface. This normal response is to reduce blood circulation to conserve heat. But areas of angiogenesis in the breast are not under control of the sympathetic nervous system and are not affected. Further, the system can differentiate between malignant tumors and fibrocystic growths, because the latter contains no thermal signature. 

All malignancies are definitely abnormal but not all abnormal images are necessarily malignant. However, all malignancies are either of the aggressive (fast growing) or non-aggressive (slow growing) type but which cannot be known at the onset. Hence, an abnormal thermal image is reason enough for intervention. Without having to know and just waiting whether there is a malignancy or not, a woman suspicious of breast cancer with an abnormal thermal breast imaging will feel much better after a non-toxic and non-invasive intervention and a repeat thermal imaging afterwards results in a normal finding .

 Within a 66-month period from November 2000 to May 2005, a total of 257 women underwent Thermal Breast Imaging as follows:

Of 207 SBC's (women suspicious of breast cancer), 71% were under age 45,
and 60% had abnormal images while 31% had normal findings.

They were spared of radiation from mammography or invasive biopsies. 


Of 47 WBC's (women medically diagnosed with breast cancer), 68% were age 45 and above.

and 94% expectedly had abnormal images but surprisingly, 4% had normal breast findings.

They were given a safe and non-invasive method to monitor themselves.


Breast Cancer Brouhaha: Mammograms Oversold

by Andrea Ravinett Martin  (1946-2003)

Founder of The Breast Cancer Fund in San Francisco, California


Once again, research has exposed the inadequacies of mammography. This may come as shocking news to the millions of women who believe the relentless marketing campaign for mammograms which reaches a deafening din in October, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  However, a large, long term research study provides compelling evidence that mammograms are oversold.


A 13-year Canadian study of more than 39,000 women has shown that annual mammographic screening for breast cancer in women ages 50 to 59 does not reduce the rate of death from breast cancer when compared to women having only annual clinical breast examinations. The women in the study were divided into two groups.  One group received mammography and clinical breast examinations. The other group received only clinical breast examinations.  After 13 years, 622 invasive tumors and 107 deaths occurred in the mammography group compared with 610 invasive tumors and 105 deaths in the physical examination only group. The researchers emphasized that they were not comparing mammography with no screening, but with "competent clinical breast examination."


Published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, this study created an instant brouhaha.  Leading radiologists leaped to the defense of mammography, calling the study flawed, criticizing the quality of the films and implying fraud on the part of those who randomized the patients. Whether those criticisms are valid depends on whom you ask.

            What may get lost in the tumult and shouting about this study are five critical messages:

            First, detection is not prevention, and mammography will not save us from breast cancer.  Nor does breast cancer found through mammography represent true early detection.  By the time a breast tumor is detected on x-ray, experts believe it has been growing 8 to 10 years.

 It is not the intent of The Breast Cancer Fund to discourage women from having mammograms.  It is the best method we have at this time for screening large numbers of women.  We believe that any woman who chooses to have a mammogram should have one and that her insurance should pay for it, but she also needs to be aware of the technologies limitations.

            Second, mammography is not a risk-free procedure. To imply otherwise defies established science.  Mammography is radiation, a known cause of breast cancer. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, there is no safe dose of radiation.  Furthermore, radiation dosage is cumulative throughout life, and there is no program in place to monitor patients cumulative lifetime radiation exposure, even though the technology exists.

            Both The National Cancer Institute and The American Cancer Society recommend that regular mammography screening begin at age 40, despite the recommendations of a 1997 NCI consensus panel to the contrary.  Women who follow those guidelines will be exposed to radiation for an additional 10 years, not an insignificant risk. 

Third, U.S. physicians and nurses need better training in clinical breast examination.  The 60 second flutter that too often constitutes clinical breast examination is grossly inadequate and a far cry from "competent" clinical breast examination as defined in the Canadian study. A thorough clinical breast examination should take a minimum of 10 minutes on each breast, a standard of care beyond the limitations of managed care.

            Fourth, most breast cancers in the United States are found by women themselves, either during self breast examination or by accident, while showering for example.  Finding a lump sends most women to their doctors for mammograms and other tests.  Too often, if a mammogram shows no abnormality, the woman is sent home without further investigation.

 Fifth, during the last half of the 20th century, almost every area of medicine saw extraordinary advances in technology. Yet mammography--a 50-year-old technology--is all we have to screen women for breast cancer. As the disease continues its relentless march into younger and younger bodies, mammography is proving less and less effective in detecting tumors in time for treatment to be successful.  Even in older women, mammograms are not foolproof, missing up to 20 percent of breast cancers.

This long-standing neglect of a vital womens health issue must end.  The government and large cancer organizations must stop putting more resources into refining mammograpy an ultimate dead-end in screening technology and begin focusing on research that will yield a safer, more reliable test. 

It is simply unacceptable to use a carcinogen to detect breast cancer, and to market the technology to young women for whom it is least effective and most dangerous.  It is long past time for a breast cancer detection method that will be effective for women of all ages without exposing them to years of radiation or compression.            

The Breast Cancer Fund believes that unless and until a fully informed public demands that breast cancer detection move beyond mammography, this will not become a priority on the national research agenda.  It was public pressure that led to the passage and funding of the Mammography Quality Assurance Act, ensuring that all facilities offering mammography met federal standards.  By educating women to the urgent need for a more effective method of early detection, we hope to help that pressure build and invite others to join us in that effort.

Thermography Instead of Mammography


Safe, Effective, Cost Effective, Peace of Mind, non Invasive, insurance covered body and breast exam

Call Dr. Lauren Swerdloff, MD., Inc, DITI of Santa Monica

Board Certified Family Physician, Specializing in Integrative Family Medicine, Thermal Imaging and Women's Health

2021 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 710E, Santa Monica,  CA 90404

310 829 5189, Fax 310 829 5942

Please tell her Shelley Kramer sent you.


Out of California: please see Meg and Ted Henry's informative website : or call   1-800-337-9548

Please tell them Susan Strauss sent you.



For products without harmful chemicals or fragrance

top of page


Copyright All rights reserved.

Telephone: 310-457-5176 or 888-377-8877 | Fax: 877-885-4657 | For General Information:

Webmaster for Shelley R. Kramer