New Diagnosis Protocol: Non-invasive, quantitative, definitive

CABrown

Recently I sat down with a Nuclear Cardiologist to learn about a protocol he invented that diagnoses Breast Cancers as small as 2mm in diameter (400 times smaller mass than baseline mammogram at 19mm).  His protocol builds on the work of renown radiologists including Dr. Iraj Khalkhali of UCLA Harbor Medical.  The protocol utilizes two drugs that are used thousands of times per day across the U.S.  Those two drugs are FDA approved and decades old.  The protocol uses them in conjunction with existing nuclear cameras that are found at virtually every hospital and diagnostic center nationwide.  I am told that the protocol may be covered by most insurance plans, in that they include "screening and/or diagnosis of tumors within the breast."

The more I learned about mammography, sonography, MRI, PET, CT, etc, (re: their role in breast cancer screening) the more angry I became.  Sure, they have saved lives, BUT... they fall so short of what we need!!  That is why I became involved with helping this protocol get to the women who need it.  It breaks my heart when I read about women who:

"find a lump that sonography can't see;" 

"sit in the parking lot and cry after getting a positive (false or not?!?) from a mammogram;" 

"fear that their lump is cancer, but must wait for more screening and even longer for diagnosis;"

"stress over how to tell their families about a 'suspicious screening'."

and more and more...

HORRIBLE!  HORRIBLE! 

We need to do better.  From all of the experts (oncologists, radiologists, scientists, etc.) I have spoken with so far, this new protocol:

• exposes the patient to ½-⅓ the radiation of mammography
• is QUANTITATIVE - not qualitative like mammography
• is DIAGNOSTIC - not screening like mammography
• is covered by most insurance programs, like mammography
• is metabolic - not physiologic, like mammography
• has virtually ZERO False-Positives and False-Negatives
• identifies masses hundreds of times smaller than averaged by mammography
• is accurate with dense breasts, prosthetic breasts; and works for MEN as well - mammography can't do that
• diagnoses pre-cancerous tissue before it becomes cancer - mammography doesn't even come close
• can help monitor treatment to make mid-course corrections and optimize treatment protocols - mammography is not useful for treatment

I would love to learn your thoughts and to hear your questions, concerns, etc.  And, if you live in/near Reno, NV, and you would like to receive this protocol, please let me know.  

Thank you.

MelissaDallas

Do you have breast cancer?

Who is your mysterious CARDIOLOGIST who is studying breast cancer?

Please post links to reputable medical sites with the write ups about said "protocol" proving its efficacy.

Oh, by the way, mammograms certainly do work on men...

Beesie

Mammograms regularly find tumors that are smaller than 19mm (1.9 cm) and even sometimes find tumors that are 2mm in size.

Not that I'm defending mammos or saying that we don't need something better.  But....

... if this is so great, why is it being promoted on a breast cancer discussion board and not being written about in medical journals and shouted out by the media? 

Why the secrecy about who's invented the protocol?  That's not very professional or ethical or over-board, is it?

I would advise against anyone passing any personal information (name, phone number, email, address, etc.) along to this individual.

geekyknitter

Smells fishy...very fishy.

Lily55

I can´t find any articles but this doctor Dr. Iraj Khalkhali of UCLA Harbor Medical IS a Specialist in breast imaging and has an interest in radiation exposure. I´d love to see some links as I am someone whose cancer was not found by mammogram (done 6 weeks prior to MRI) despite being sizeable on diagnosis via contrast MRI

Moderators

We have asked the original poster to review the site's Community Rules, and to contact us. Until we hear from her/him and can review the reply, we are closing this thread. 

• The Mods