I object to this reading material.
Recently, the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) had a red light special sale selling many of their books and (mis)educational material at a discount price. We took the opportunity to snap up an assortment, and as you can see, I ended up with the Conscientious Objector Pack.
What is a conscientious objector I hear you ask? In Australia, between 2 and 5 percent of parents strongly object to their children being vaccinated, either for religious reasons or because of misinformation spread by anti-vax groups such as the AVN.
In a scheme introduced in 1997, parents who complete the government schedule for childhood vaccinations receive a one off payment of AUD200. This was an incentive designed to increase the levels of herd immunity, which had fallen dangerously low, thereby increasing the risk for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.
But, if you identify yourself as a conscientious objector, you are also entitled to the money. You just need to explain your reasons to your doctor, they sign a form, (which you can conventiently find on the AVN website) and you collect your cheque too!
The pack pictured is chock-a-block full of magazine articles, opinion pieces and scientific papers (some dating back to the 60s meaning the information is seriously outdated), describing how vaccines will injure your children. This ~ 100 page A4 photocopied piece of propaganda is designed so you can arm yourself with misinformation and half truths about vaccines to bombard your doctor with, when they ask you why you don’t want to vaccinate your children.
And this organisation calls themselves pro-choice, not anti-vaccination.
Expect more updates as I bravely plough through this nonsense.
Know thy enemy.
Thanks to Pete for the pack.
A tale of blue green algae, attacking birds, Hollywood and neurodegeneration
Many readers, especially Australians, would be familiar with “blue-green algae”. In particular, if you have spent any time in South Australia, you may recall periodic government alerts warning against drinking the water or using it for recreation during outbreaks or “blooms”.
The term algal ‘bloom’ describes an increase in the number of algal cells to a point where they can discolour the water, produce unpleasant tastes and odours, affect shellfish and fish populations and seriously reduce the water quality (1). Since many types of algae produce toxins, they can also make you very sick and have been responsible for the deaths of livestock and marine species.
Blue green algae, also known as cyanobacteria, are in fact photosynthesizing bacteria, which are green when metabolising and turn bluish when the scums are dying. Cyanobacteria live in terrestrial, fresh, brackish, or marine water, but can also live as symbiots in the roots of plants.
Algal blooms occur in all types of waterways and water storages, and bloom when nutrients and light are high. Whilst not all species which make up algal booms are toxic, there is no way to know, until you test them, so it is better to steer clear. Toxicity also varies with the seasons and environmental conditions.
The toxins, including domoic acid and BMAA (a neurotoxin) are released as the bloom dies and the cells become ‘leaky’. Domoic acid has been implicated in serious food poisonings, even deaths associated with shellfish and BMAA in neurodegeneration such as Alzheimer’s disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and an ALS/Pakinsonism-dementia complex of Guam (Guam’s disease).
Australia – a history of blue green scum
Toxicity associated with blue green algae has been documented as far back as the 1850s, where accounts by European explorers and settlers contain numerous references to scums or discoloured water (2). Some reports also suggest the Australian Aboriginals had been aware of the poisonous nature of blooms as far back as 1850 (3).
The earliest documented scientific evidence was published in Nature in 1878 in a paper called “Poisonous Australian Lake.” The report described “..a bloom of Nodularia spumigera floated to the lake surface and was wafted to the lee shores, forming a scum 2–6 inches thick” (4).
Large numbers of livestock ingested the scum via drinking including horses, sheep and cattle and later died and one woman became seriously ill. The deaths and publication of the Nature paper created a heightened awareness amongst the public, leading to warnings, and police troopers stationed at various points along recreational and drinking water bodies, to warn of approaching blooms.
In the Summer of 1991-1992 an enormous bloom occurred in the Barwon-Darling River System in NSW. This bloom spread over an area spanning 1000 km and remains today the world’s largest Algal Bloom (5).
When birds attack; the Hitchcock connection.
But it’s not only livestock and humans who are at risk of illness when exposed to algal blooms. A very famous case of sea life allegedly falling victim to algal blooms occurred in California, USA.
In the early morning hours of August 17, 1961, residents of Santa Cruz were invaded by a massive flight of sooty shearwaters slamming into their homes and littering the streets and town. The Santa Cruz Sentinel Sentinel reported the incident under the headline; ‘Seabird Invasion Hits Coastal Homes’
‘…When the light of day made the area visible, residents found the streets covered with birds. The birds disgorged bits of fish and fish skeletons over the streets and lawns and housetops, leaving an overpowering fishy stench.’
Several theories exist as to the cause of the mass destruction and death. The first explanation was offered at the time of the incident by museum zoologist at the University of California, Ward Russell, who proposed that the birds were disturbed whilst feeding, became disorientated in the heavy fog that layered the coast that morning and headed for the light of the town, including torches held by curious residents, thus appearing to “attack”.
But scientists now speculate that ingestion of anchovies contaminated with toxic algae may have played a role.
What is known is that the incident sparked the interest of an author across the globe in Cornwall, England whom several years earlier in 1952, had also been attacked by birds, but in a very different scenario. In an autobiography of author Daphne Du Maurier called “The Private World Of Daphne Du Maurier”, author Martyn Shallcross describes Du Maurier was walking her dog by a lake, when two hungry seagulls attacked her dog then her, forcing her to seek shelter under a nearby tree. The result was the 1952 novellete “The Birds”.
Four days after the 1961 sooty shearwaters incident in Santa Cruz, the Santa Cruz Sentinel had another story to report,
“Hollywood mystery producer Alfred Hitchcock phoned The Sentinel Saturday to let us know he is using last Friday’s edition as research material for his latest thriller.” (August 21, 1961; page 4).
Apparently, the movie version of Du Maurier’s book was already underway under the supervision of Hitchcock, but the Santa Cruz incident may have inspired him to change the location from the quaint hills of Cornwall, England to Bodega Bay California, where his 1963 “The Birds” thriller was eventually set.
Evidence for a role for algal bloom poisoning in a mass disorientation and death of sea birds was presented in 1991, when a similar incident of unusual bird behaviour was observed around Monterey Bay in California. Studies of the dead birds, including brown pelicans and Brandt’s cormorants showed they were poisoned by domoic acid, probably from the anchovies that the birds fed on. Domoic acid is excreted in large quantities during plankton blooms, thus posing a risk for sea creatures that feed on plankton, and larger creatures further up the food chain.
Human poisonings have also been documented, some fatal. In 1987 a hundred people on Prince Edward Island in Canada suffered from dizziness, nausea, and memory loss after consuming contaminated mussels. On this occasion, four people died from the effects of the toxin.
In Brazil in 1996, 101 of 124 dialysis patients who received dialysis with water contaminated with cyanobacteria suffered acute liver injury,and 50 died. An investigation revealed the water used in dialysis had not been sufficiently treated and contained toxins known as microcystins. These patients reported similar symptoms to the food poisoning cases, including visual disturbance (i.e., blurred vision, scotoma, or nightblindness), nausea and vomiting, headache, and muscle weakness.
In November 1979 an outbreak of hepatoenteritis at Palm Island, in northern Queensland, involved 148 people, mainly children, the majority of whom required hospitalization. The outbreak occurred a few days after the supply authority treated the dam with copper sulphate to kill the algae, which in turn burst the algae, releasing the toxins into the water. A week later people who had drunk the water became ill, with signs of gastrointestinal, liver and kidney damage. (Interestingly, the conclusion that microcystins were the culprit has since been challenged by an author who said this was a cover up for copper poisoning resulting from the supply company ‘over treating’ the water).
A more recent hypothesis regarding disorientation amongst sea creatures leading to death as a result of acute plankton or cyanobacteria poisoning, is the phenomenom of whales beaching. This does not seem so unreasonable when you consider that algal blooms, occur regularly in the oceans, all over the world some so large, they have been photographed from space.
But it’s natural so it must be good for me!
So we now know that blue green algae can be toxic to both humans and animals, in some cases fatally. Sure it’s natural but this doesn’t necessarily make it safe. Cyanide is derived from the kernels of apricots – it’s completely natural but it will kill you. The Ebola virus is natural, but you will suffer an excruitiating death as your organs slough out your orifices.
As such it puzzles me is that you can buy cyanobacteria from your local health food store in a powder or tablet form marketed as spirulina. Touted as “100% Pure and Natural”, “nature’s superfood” and “Totally natural product” spirulina is nevertheless blue green algae meaning contamination with BMAA and other toxins can not be completely discounted.
Following the publishing of a paper from Cox et al. in 2005 (6) which reported 30 types of cyanobacteria were contaminated with BMAA, the Spirulina industry went into overdrive to ensure their customers that their products were safe. Several issued press releases emphasising (correctly) that the Cox paper did not test spirulina. One company, Cyanotech Corporation apparently approached Cox to test their spirulina for BMAA to which they say “he did not respond”1.
“The Company then enlisted the services of Professor Wayne W. Carmichael, Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Wright State University and a leading expert in the field of cyanobacterial toxins. On June 3, 2005, Professor Carmichael reported his findings confirming the absence of detection levels of the suspected neurotoxin BMAA in Cyanotech’s Spirulina Pacifica.”
This is good news, for this batch of spirulina and for this company. But what about other producers of Spirulina? As discussed earlier, biological variability dictates that levels of toxins synthesized by cyanobacteria are different from season to season, time and lifecycle at harvest. For some of their lifetime blue-green algae may have no toxins, other times large quantities. If I was a consumer of spirulina (and why would I), I would want every batch tested before I take it.
In another press release from by Earthrise Nutritional they stated;
“It should also be pointed out that the connection between BMAA and Alzheimer’s disease is far from certain. Dr. Paul Alan Cox’s group has not made any definite connection in their report, and other experts in the field have expressed their reservations.”
This cyanobacteria/BMAA hypothesis was first proposed by Cox and colleagues including Dr Oliver Sacks when they found BMAA in the brains of Canadian and Guam Alzheimer’s patients but not in control patients (7) and further evidence has followed (8-9). This hypothesis has been further strengthened with recent findings from scientists at the University of Miami, where BMAA was detected in brain and spinal cords of ALS patients (10).
Similarly, veterans of the Gulf War have increased incidences of ALS at a younger age than the rest of the population. Studies into the cause included analyses of the deserts of Qatar and showed that 56% of the area consists of cyanobacterial crusts and mats which contained BMAA (10).
Further, an elegant “Google Maps” epidemiological study of a cluster of ALS patients in New Hampshire, USA revealed that many had resided by water bodies which had been subject to frequent algal blooms (11).
Although the cyanobacteria/BMAA hypothesis is not yet proven, the evidence is compelling enough for me to think twice before I consume spirulina. Especially when one grower has the following listed as “slight side effects”;
- Slight fever due to the body’s need to burn the extra protein from Spirulina
- Slight dizziness. If this occurs, take less of the product. If the symptom does not improve please stop taking Spirulina
- Thirst and constipation. After taking a high volume of Spirulina we recommend at least an extra 1/2 litre of water per day to help our body absorb the Spirulina
- Stomach ache
- Skin itch or slight body rash
(my emphasis)
Remember the 100 people from Prince Edward Island who were poisoned by shellfish? They;
“…suffered from dizziness, nausea, and memory loss after consuming contaminated mussels.”
Correlation does not equal causation but the similarities are interesting nonetheless.
——
Footnotes
1. Strangely I can find no trace of the original Cyanotech press release associated with them, only reports on other websites.
References
(1) http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/water/blue_green/blue_green.html last accessed January 5th
(2) http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9940731.htm last accessed January 5th 2010.
(3) Francis G. 1878. Poisonous Australian Lake. Nature (London) 18, 11-12.
(4) http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/720907
(5) Cox et al. 2003. PNAS 100:13380-3.
(6) Cox et al. 2005. PNAS 102:5074-8.
(7) Murch et al. 2004. PNAS 101:12228-31.
(8) Murch et al. 2009. Acta Neurol Scand 120:216-225.
(9) Bradley and Nash. 2009. ALS S2:7-20.
(10) Cox et al. 2009 ALS S2:109-117.
(11) Caller et al. 2009 ALS S2:101-108.
A lesson in the importance of “unbiased” proof-reading
We all have a very busy life these days, with work and family and volunteering wherever possible.
Which means sometimes you might not get time to fact-check some of the things written about you before they get published. I often do talks, and organisers always ask me to send a bio or short description of my background which they publish in the programme or on the accompanying website.
Usually they ask me to send my own, which suits me because this way I can ensure it is absolutely accurate and doesn’t contain any inaccuracies.
But here is an example of one which obviously slipped by the person in question without proofreading. It’s only short but there are several inaccuracies which are immediately obvious to me. You can see a link to the web page where this bio originally appeared here.
The most obvious one is “unbiased” from “…offers her unbiased…knowledge…” (see above).
Following are a few examples of Meryl’s “unbiased” views on vaccination.
“There will come a time – I pray to God that it will happen in my lifetime – when those who have pushed vaccines upon innocent, helpless babies – doctors, pharmaceutical companies, government officials – will be proven to have lied and cheated these instruments of death into our children’s bloodstream. When that occurs, the outcry will be heard around the world and there will not be enough hiding places on the globe for these murderers to hide or enough money to pay for compensation. Of course, it will be too late for the babies, like this poor child, to be saved. But we will be able to take satisfaction from the fact that never again will anyone have to be pushed to poison their child because for once and for all, it will be known as poison and we will all wonder how it was we fell for the vaccine lie for as long as we did.”
Meryl Dorey, President, Australian Vaccination Network, AVN Yahoo group, 17 Dec 2008, message #36449
Another example of Meryl’s “unbiased” opinion/information occurred during a recent interview on Lismore local ABC radio where, despite repeated questioning she was unable to state one childhood vaccine that she thinks is “good”.
This is despite the fact the she insists publicly that she and the AVN are not anti-vaccine, but pro-choice.
Following is part of a transcript from the interview she did about her and the AVN winning the Australian Skeptics “Bent Spoon” Award for 2009.
Interviewer: “Which vaccines do you think are good then in Aust..?
Meryl: “I think that all vaccines are up to the parents and…”
Interviewer: “That wasn’t what I asked though was it. Which vaccines are good? This was the point I think the Skeptics were making is that you’ve never actually said, which vaccine is worthwhile, which scientific designed vaccine is good, worthwhile.
Meryl: “It is not, it is not my role, nor is it the role of the Australian Vaccination Network to tell anyone what to they should or should not do when it comes to vaccination. Now the Australian Skeptics have said that the um, Australian Vaccination Network is responsible for a decline in vaccination in Australia that has lead to an outbreak of pertussis and they accuse us of scientific piffle and yet..”
Cat got your tongue Meryl?
If you spot any more inaccuracies, and can support them with evidence (no defamatory statements please), then please leave a comment. Perhaps Meryl would appreciate the feedback so that her next bio is not quite so misleading. If only for the sake of her members, and other parents seeking advice on vaccination, who trust they get accurate information from the AVN and Meryl.
——
Thanks to Steve for the tip-off. Audio courtesy of the Vaccination Awareness and Information Service.
Alternative medicine trumps science, resulting in tragedy.
Regular readers of this blog might remember the tragic story of Tamar Stitt, the 10 year old girl whose parents smuggled her out of Australia following a court order that she receive chemotherapy, to seek treatment for her rare liver cancer with alternative medicine.
Her story was featured on Channel 7s Sunday Night and I previously blogged about it here.
Well, today I was informed that tragically Tamar succumbed to her cancer on November 12th, 2009 in San Salvador where she was undergoing treatment with natural therapies, including hours of mud-wraps. There is little information on this at the time of going to press, except to say that my source tells me they contacted a journalist involved in the story, who confirmed this was the case and that Tamar passed in hospital. Google searches are also turning up very little, however I did find a comment from someone on a news site, dated December 31 st 2009, stating
“Tamar died a month or so ago in el Salvador. Towards the end the mother was taking her for chemo treatment but it was too late. Her death was reported on the news here two days ago – the hospital in el salvador has confirmed it.”
According to the 3news.co.nz story from October 12th 3009, doctors in Perth
“say a seven week course of chemotherapy will give Tamar a 50 to 60 percent chance of survival. Without it she will suffer a long and painful death.”
But her parents are devout Christians, and say God will decide her fate.
“I don’t want to lose my daughter, but it is God’s decision,” says Tamar’s father Trevor Stitt.
“Who am I to fight against it?”
Trevor also left a comment on the same website stating;
14 Oct 2009 8:17p.m.
Hello to all of you, yes I am Tamar’s Father.Channel 7 came into our lives to supposedly portray 2 sides of the story, sadly they’ve lied and left out half the truth that they filmed. They were supposed to interview people (Doctors)and natural healers who’ve cured people of cancer successfully, but “pulled the pin” on the interviews because it would topple their one-sided story.They also ommited to say that I trained at Guy’s Hospital, London and worked as an Operating Dept Practitioner in Anaesthesia in the UK for 10 years before coming to Oz in 1998,worked at Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London and so have quite good research engines at my disposal. I have seen “clay wraps” cure my Tamar of asthma at 2 yrs when PMH only offered steroidal inhalers, she’s never had an attack since.If 7 had’ve told the truth about what they saw without overdramatising the San Salvador situation and others for sensationalism, then maybe folks would know more of what we are doing for Tamar, who IS getting a little better each day.I have to say I don’t really know who you are Josie, you say you know us,do you have another name?
I guess the struggle is just beginning (and I don’t speak about Tamar’s condition here)those “orthodox”people will not be happy, google Roy Rife, see what happened to him.Remember Patch Adams? (a true story)didn’t fit in to orthodox practice, too happy,he had a proper bedside manner (taboo in today’s conventional medicine). “There are none so blind as those who will not see”- with the eye of faith you don’t only see, you begin to LIVE!Thanks to All who support us and also to those who don’t.
This is a terribly tragic case, especially if it is true that Tamar’s mother did eventually take her for chemotherapy, as suggested by the comment above. Even more so, because her father apparently has a medical background including working “…as an Operating Dept Practitioner in Anaesthesia in the UK for 10 years before coming to Oz in 1998,worked at Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London……so have quite good research engines at my disposal.” (see above). Despite this, Tamar’s parents still chose to seek out alternative remedies as oppose to those supported by evidence.
Cases such as these where religious beliefs and faith in alternative medicine result in (often) avoidable deaths are tragically, not uncommon. It is also important to consider the desperation and vulnerability of a person faced with the imminent death of their daughter, therefore one can sympathise that you might be inclined to try anything. Similar to my Mum’s friend who passed 6 months ago from cancer also, but in her final months fell victim to all kinds of useless therapies including hair analysis which I have previously blogged about here and here and vega testing.
It reminds me of a quote from an essay written by Michael Baum and Edzard Ernst in the book “Healing, Hype or Harm” about ethics in alternative medicine;
“Even treatments which by themselves are not harmful, will become life threatening if they are used as an alternative to effective treatments of serious diseases.”
Cancer Victoria produces a booklet warning cancer patients about “quack” therapies. You can read about it here.
Several sources have advised me that there will be a follow up story on Today Tonight this coming week.
—
Thanks to Tony for letting me know about this. Please see Tim Farley’s comprehensive website What’s the Harm? for more such cases.
Paul Offit, Wired and Amy Wallace sued for defamation.
I was recently tipped off to a defamation case which was lodged on December 23rd by Barbara Loe Fisher, from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) for USD1 million against Paul Offit, Amy Wallace and the publishers of Wired magazine, Conde Nast Publications in the United states District Court.
You can read the entire case as a pdf here.
The case revolves around the article written by Amy Wallace called ‘An epidemic of Fear, One Man’s Battle Against the Anti-Vaccine Movement’ (pdf here) published in WIRED in November 2009. The offending paragraph which Fisher is claiming has defamed her character appears below (quoted from the lawsuit);
20. The following passage contains the principle attack on Plaintiff Fisher’s honesty, character, and integrity, culminating in the per se libel (quoted from Offit) that Plaintiff Fisher “lies:”
‘”Kaflooey theories’ make him (Offit) crazy, especially if they catch on. Fisher, who has long been the media’s go-to interview for what some in the autism arena call ‘parents [sic] rights,’ makes him particularly nuts, as in ‘You just want to scream.’ The reason? ‘She lies/ he says flatly.
And
21. Plaintiff Fisher is not a liar. The statement “she lies” is without a basis in fact. Plaintiff Fisher depends on her reputation for honesty and integrity in all of her business, professional, and personal relationships. During her 28 years at the center of the vaccination debate, Plaintiff Fisher has never made a representation that she knew to be false and has scrupulously told the truth. In fact, Plaintiff Fisher is well known for taking special care to document the written statements she makes about vaccination with numerous references from original sources in an effort to be accurate, transparently honest and trustworthy. The accusation that Plaintiff Fisher is a liar is malicious, spiteful, the product of ill-will, and is an overt attempt to discredit and destroy her reputation for honesty and integrity out of Offit and Wallace’s zealous commitment to mandatory, universal vaccination.
The overall tone of the suit is one of Fisher as the underdog fighting for the rights of children damaged by vaccines whereas Offit, (co-inventor of RotaTeq the vaccine against rotavirus) is driven purely by profit, is deeply in the pockets of Big Pharma and promotes anyone who opposes vaccination as; “ignorant of science and negligent, placing all others in society at risk of illness, injury or death”.
The reasons for Wallace also being sued are detailed here;
Before publishing the article, Wallace engaged in a lengthy interview with Plaintiff Fisher by phone and in communications with her via electronic mail. She never questioned in that interview Plaintiff Fisher’s honesty or integrity and did not thereafter confront her with the Offit charge that she was a liar and invite her to respond.
In confirmation of Wallace’s bias against those who oppose mandatory, universal vaccination, Wallace wrote and published the libel specifically choosing it as the climax of her article’s characterization of Plaintiff Fisher and following her defamatory positioning of Plaintiff Fisher as “the brain” for an entire vaccine
safety and informed consent movement which Wallace deliberately mislabeled as “anti-vaccine”
and that she condemned as unscientific and opportunistic.Wallace knew Fisher not to be opposed to the availability and use of vaccines but to be opposed to forced use of vaccines and to vaccination without fully informed consent, yet falsely described her as a leader of the “antivaccine movement,” thus associating her within the article as a vaccine opponent who is unscientific, opportunistic, and dangerous to society. Wallace published the statement “she lies,” quoted from Offit, with knowledge of its falsity. Wallace aided and abetted Offit’s aim to discredit, debase, and defame Plaintiff Fisher by accusing her of being a liar.
Further;
After labeling supporters of informed consent and vaccine risk awareness as irrational individuals blinded by fear, after identifying Plaintiff Fisher as the “movement’s brain,” and after lionizing Offit as the leading expert on vaccination whose views the public should trust, Wallace portrays Plaintiff Fisher, in reliance on a quote from Offit, as a liar, impugning her honesty, character, and integrity.
I’ll keep you updated on further developments as they come to hand.
Tip o’ the hat to Michael
The Safe Breast Cancer Screening Test Your Doctor Isn’t Telling You About!!!
It’s safe, effective, with no side effects or risks. Sounds too good to be true? it just might be…
Thermography is the topic of this weeks Dr Rachie reports.
I refer to it as “The Safe Breast Cancer Screening Test Your Doctor Isn’t Telling You About” because this was what popped up on Google when I searched for information.
Image taken from www.lorencollins.net/trudeau/
Clued up sceptics would know this is one of the classic red flags to alert you to pseudoscience. In fact it has been used in the title of just about every book written by Kevin Trudeau, the infomerical billionaire from the US, who peddles all kinds of fantastical products and has been fined for doing so.
If you’re not familiar with the seven signs of pseudoscience, then it would be wise to become familiar with them to protect yourself from getting conned.
Dr Robert L Park published an article in the The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 31, 2003. in 2003, detailing the red flags to alert you to pseudoscience and the article has since been republished on Quackwatch.
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A little about breast cancer.
See Breast Cancer Australia for more information.
- 1 in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 75.
- Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer related death in women in Australia.
- The incidence of breast cancer has risen over 18% from 1995 to 2005.
- In Australia in 2005, a total of 12,170 women and 95 men were diagnosed with breast cancer and there were 2,683 deaths.
So, what is thermography?
This technology was originally designed for US military use in night vision but also has many applications in medicine (Arora N. et al., 2008). The principle of medical thermography is the detection of small temperature differences in the body which are then transformed into thermal images that the practitioner interprets. The theory is that abnormalities such as malignancies, inflammation and infection emit increased heat that will appear as hot spots on images.
Breast thermography, also known as thermal breast imaging, is a technique that produces “heat pictures” of the breast, by measuring the temperature of the skin of the breast. The rationale for thermography in breast imaging is that the skin overlying a breast cancer can be warmer than that of surrounding areas.
Limits of thermography
Thermography was approved by the FDA in 1982 as an adjuct tool for breast cancer detection. Its applicability, however, was limited by the temperature resolution capability of earlier imaging technology, the bulky equipment necessary to perform procedures, and the general lack of computer analytical tools (Arora N. et al., 2008). Thermography is also limited in that it only indicates if a difference in temperature exists. The diagnostic significance of this information remains unclear. It has not been proven that performing thermography eliminates the need for other diagnostic studies, nor has it been demonstrated that any additional diagnostic value is provided by thermography.
Although thermography is a noninvasive low-risk procedure (i.e., no harmful rays are emitted), several disadvantages have prevented its widespread use. It requires a tightly controlled environment free from draft, temperature fluctuation, and humidity. It also requires a 20-minute to two-hour acclimatization period.
Does thermography detect breast cancer?
In 2004, the New Zealand Health Technology Assessment conducted a review of the scientific literature to establish the efficacy of thermography as a screening tool and adjunctive diagnostic tool. They scoured Pub Med, turning up 1,154 abstracts which matched their search criteria, from which 85 were selected for full text and three were used in the review. They reported;
“The evidence that is currently available does not provide enough support for the role of infrared thermography for either population screening or adjuvant diagnostic testing of breast cancer.”
Whilst there are studies demonstrating that thermography can be useful as an adjunct tool in breast screening (see Arora et al., 2008), this evidence is sparse and likely explains why cancer bodies and governments remains cautious about recommending the procedure.
BreastScreen SA has this information about thermography:
“According to several reviews there is no current scientific evidence to support the use of thermography in the early detection of breast cancer or in the reduction of mortality from breast cancer. The results of thermography in various studies are inconsistent, but overall, thermography produces an abnormal result in too many women who do not have cancer, and it misses cancers that are known to be present in other women.”
The scientific, peer-reviewed literature and professional societies do not support the use of thermography as a reliable indicator for the presence of breast cancer (Hayes, 2006).
And this also from the BreastScreen SA website; “There is a high level of consistency in the approach of numerous medical organizations from Australia and abroad in warning against the use of thermography for breast cancer detection. The following organisations support the use of mammography and do not support the use of thermography for breast cancer detection (valid as at May 2007):”
Excerpted from BreastScreen SA newsletter the GPs number 12, November 2007
Not that this prevents the alt med guys from spruiking it anyway, never mind the pesky evidence. One such case occurred recently when Mike Adams from the website Natural News reported on new findings about the risks associated with mammograms. No medical intervention is without risk and mammograms are no exception since small doses of radiation are used to image the breast tissue.
Several recent studies have shown that for women at high risk for breast cancer, getting early scans, beginning before the age of thirty, can increase the risk of getting the disease between 1.5 and 2.5 times. For this reason The US Department of Health and Human Services changed the recommendations for mammograms on November 19th 2009, advising that they should now be started at age 50 and performed bi-annually, up from 40 years of age.
Excerpted from BreastScreen SA newsletter the GPs number 12, November 2007
Among women who have BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, the lifetime risk of breast cancer is 36% to 85%, and the lifetime risk of ovarian cancer is 16% to 60% (Jantoi et al., 2008) therefore, regular screening from a young age is important. The BRCA1/2 genes are known as “tumour suppression genes” and as such are responsible for correcting DNA mutations; mutations that may well result from radiation damage (Kennedy D.A., et al., 2009). As such, is it important for women with these mutations to discuss the risks of mammograms with their doctor and consider alternatives, such as MRI and ultrasound.
Mike Adams on Natural News reported findings from a recent study about the risks of mammography as “Study verifies mammography screenings cause cancer!” which is a completely misleading interpretation of the findings. To reiterate, they may increase the risk by a much as 2.5 fold, but they do not cause cancer. So if you are unlucky enough to have the double mutation and have a 60% chance of getting cancer, with the increased risk of 2.5 fold, you then you have a 120% chance. Not very good odds, which is why many such women who have this mutation get double mastectomies.
What a boob
Mike then proposed that women get MRIs or thermography instead. Thanks for the medical advice Mike.
In line with the unreliability of thermography, BreastScreen Australia has published a position statement on their website stating; “ The National Advisory Committee to the BreastScreen Australia Program does not recommend the use of thermography for the early detection of breast cancer” for the following reasons;
Studies have shown that a tumour has to be large (several centimetres in diameter) before it can be detected by thermography (Homer 1985). Screening mammograms have the ability to detect breast cancer at a much smaller size, and therefore to reduce deaths from breast cancer. Less than 50% of breast cancers detected by mammography screening have an abnormal thermogram (Martin 1983).
Excerpted from BreastScreen SA newsletter the GPs number 12, November 2007
Thermography was also cited in a recent parliamentary enquiry in South Australia into what the AMA called “bogus” therapies, along with colonic irrigation, claims made by some chiropractors about “subluxation”, cures for cancer, and some erectile dysfunction treatments. The AMA has concerns about “quackery”, telling the inquiry that unregulated practitioners are a “relative risk to patient health and have enjoyed immunity and lack of scrutiny from the legal and regulatory authorities which apply to the medical profession”.
Take home message
The take home message is that thermography is unreliable – missing known cancers and diagnosing non-existent cancers – and also expensive at around $200 US dollars. But don’t take my advice or that of Mike Adams from Natural News, talk to your doctor.
———
References
Arora N., et al. Effectiveness of noninvasive digital infrared thermal imaging system in the detection of breast cancer. The American Journal of Surgery. 2008; 196: 523-526.
Hayes Search and Summary™. Digital infrared imaging (thermography) for detection of breast cancer. Lansdale, PA: HAYES, Inc.; ©2006 Winifred S. Hayes, Inc. 2006 Apr 2.
Homer MJ. Breast Imaging: Pitfalls, controversies and some practical thoughts. Radiological Clinics of North America 1985; 23: 459-471
Jatoi I. and Anderson W.F., Management of women who have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Surgical Clinics of North America. 2008; 88: 845 – 861.
Kennedy DA, Lee T, Seely D. A comparative review of thermography as a breast cancer screening technique. Integrative Cancer Therapies. 2009; 8: 9-16.
Martin JE. Breast imaging techniques, mammography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, thermography and transillumination. Radiological Clinics of North America 1983; 21: 149-153
No Natural News, mammograms do not cause cancer.
Recently there have been some studies showing that for women at high risk of breast cancer, annual mammograms may increase their risk of contracting the disease.
Women with a genetic disposition or familial history need to begin screening at a younger age, some as early as 20 years of age, because they often develop cancer earlier than women of average risk. Since every medical intervention is associated with risks, there was some concern the low levels of radiation emitted during the mammogram may be a cancer risk. And because science is self correcting, (unlike some other types of self proclaimed “health care”) studies were conducted to test the hypothesis.
One such study, described in a press release on EurekAlert! (and I’ll explain why I’m discussing a study from a press release in a moment) reported that women at high risk of early onset breast cancer receiving annual mammograms showed an average increased cancer risk 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation. The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.
Breast cancer is second only to lung cancers as the biggest cancer risk for women, so health authorities take such findings very seriously. Even if, in this case the authors warned that the study was a small sample size and should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the American Cancer Society recommends that some women at high risk (greater than 20 percent lifetime risk) should have MR imaging (MRI) or ultrasound every year, typically beginning at age 30, instead of mammograms.
But one newsgroup is not treating these findings with caution. The alternative medicine website “Natural News” reported today that “Study verifies mammography screenings cause cancer “. Not only is the headline misleading but the text, adapted from the press release is rather inaccurate.
Take this line from the press release published on EurekAlert!;
Alternative screening methods such as ultrasound and MRI may be made available to younger women, but are generally used as an adjunct to mammography.
Which was reported by Natural News as;
Ultrasounds, MRIs, and heat thermography screenings are some alternatives that do not expose patients to radiation.
Somehow thermography was slipped in there are as a valid alternative to mammograms, even though it is not mentioned in the press release.
In fact, thermography is not recommended by the following cancer bodies (as of May 2007) as a tool for diagnosing breast cancer.
– BreastScreen Australia
– National Breast Cancer Centre
– Royal College of Radiologists of Australia and New Zealand
– American Medical Association
– American Cancer Society
– Cancer Research UK
– Mayo Clinic, USA
– Australian Therapeutics Goods Administration
– Medicare Australia.
This however, is simply more evidence for Mike the Health Ranger, author of the story (who by the way is not an oncologist, a doctor, or a scientist) that
…mammograms are really “repeat business machines” for the cancer industry.
He declares that this small scale, preliminary study is evidence that there is
…no reason for any women to ever receive a mammogram ever again.
And that;
Ultrasound and thermography should now be the new standard for breast cancer detection screenings, as they do not subject women to excess radiation.
Thanks for the medical advice Mike. Seems like the thermography business now stands to make a packet load. But he’s not finished yet,
In fact, mammograms represent the slickest marketing gimmick we’ve ever seen in modern medicine. It’s a technology that recruits new patients by actually causing the disease is claims to “detect.”
Well then it’s not doing a very good job, since this only works for women at high risk already.
But, there is a very good reason why thermography is not the preferred method for detection of breast cancers and no Mike, it’s not because of the “Big Cancer” wanting to line it’s pockets. It’s because it it not a very sensitive technique, therefore it can miss cancers.
In line with this, the following statement appears on the Breast Screen website
“Studies have shown that a tumour has to be large (several centimetres in diameter) before it can be detected by thermography (Homer 1985). Screening mammograms have the ability to detect breast cancer at a much smaller size, and therefore to reduce deaths from breast cancer. Less than 50% of breast cancers detected by mammography screening have an abnormal thermogram (Martin 1983).”
So it appears that if women only use thermography, there is a much greater risk that their cancer will be missed.
The final word goes to the study:
In general, early detection with mammography and prompt treatment can significantly improve a woman’s chances of survival. More than 90 percent of women whose breast cancer is found in an early stage will survive. For young, high-risk women and their doctors, it is important to weigh the benefits against any potential risk when making a decision about annual breast cancer screening with mammography.
So whilst mammograms may best be avoided if you are a woman in a high risk group, for others they are the most sensitive technique currently available for early breast cancer detection. This study certainly does not say they “cause cancer” and you should certainly not be taking advice from an alt. med. website or from a guy who makes his living from pimping alt. med. products.
And likewise, don’t take advice from me. Talk to your doctor.
References: Homer MJ 1985: “Breast Imaging: Pitfalls, controversies and some practical thoughts” Radiological Clinics of North America 23: 459-471. Martin JE 1983: “Breast imaging techniques, mammography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, thermography and transillumination” Radiological Clinics of North America 21: 149-153
—
Listen to Dr Rachie reports this week on the Zone for more information about thermography for breast cancer. Woo!
The brains behind science & art
In this week’s Dr Rachie Reports for the Zone #60, I interview Dr Adam Hamlin from the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland about his work in neurodegeneration, especially Alzheimer’s disease.
During the segment, Adam shows me around the microscope room where we talk about the beautiful pictures he takes of brain slices using fluorescent imaging techniques.
Using mice as a model for Alzheimer’s disease, Adam can monitor the effect of a protein knows as beta-amyloid on the function of the brain. The technique he uses is called histology, which involves the removal of the brains, fixing them in wax or formaldehyde and then slicing them very finely with a very sharp blade contained in a machine called a “microtome”. Adam can then examine certain parts of the brain by staining or “decorating” them with antibodies which show up in different colours (you will see what I mean by decorate if you look below). The antibodies recognise specific proteins in the brain and allow him to monitor how treatment with drugs can modify the health of the brain.
Well like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here with permission is a selection of Adam’s histology reproduced for you to enjoy.
If you would like to know more about any of the work shown here, please feel free to email Adam at a.hamlin [at] uq.edu.au with your questions. Click on the images for a larger view.
They Might Be Giants pimp science
I have long been a fan of They Might be Giants having discovered them with their third album “Flood”.
In fact I saw the two Johns on the “flood” tour back in the early 90s when the played Le Rox, a famous goth club in Adelaide no longer in existance. In my late teens and goth phase (yes I wore Doc Martens and tartan skirts and had sticky-up-black hair) I saw many great bands here and also had the dubious honor of falling down the steep stairs.
Many years later, a friend tipped me off to this great clip from a full length DVD by The Giants. It’s an animated project for kids, promoting science.
Here’s a preview from their kids’ series which includes “Science is Real” and “Kids Go!“.
Watch the previews below for some fun TMBG!
And “Science is Real”
Tip of the hat to James Murty
Free webinar on homeopathy and austism spectrum disorder.
Please sign up!
In what seems like a match made in hell and should send shivers down the spine of any rational sensible science based person, the AVN is teaming up with super quack homeopath Fran Sheffield to host a webinar entitled “The Homeopathic Treatment of Autism”.
For the first time, it is free to register for this webinar which is sponsored by the AVN and scheduled for December 2nd from 7 – 9 pm AEST.
I encourage you to sign up here and consider live tweeting the webinar as it happens, using the hashtag #autismAVN. If you do plan to live tweet, leave a message so I can gather up your tweets and publish them as a blog post after the event.
By the way, I was alerted to this event via the Homeopathy Plus e-newsletter which you can also sign up to here.
Readers will recall that the AVN and their president Meryl Dorey were awarded the 2009 Australian Skeptics Bent Spoon award as “the perpetrator(s) of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle”. You can read all the details of the reasons why they were given this prestigious award here.
Fran Sheffield has also had a complaint lodged about some hocus-pocus claims made on her website to the TGA in Australia. One regarding nonsense pertaining to the effectiveness of homeopathic immunisation for meningococcal disease is currently languishing with the TGA as they go about dealing with threats to public safety at a glacial pace.
