#4: Early Detection of Breast Cancer

Simply Hormones Podcast

The early detection of breast cancer is essential, in my view. Detecting rogue cells up to ten years before they cause serious problems has to be our first line of defence. Here, I speak to Dr Nyjon Eccles about how Thermal Imaging can help reduce the incidence of breast cancer and how subsequent preventative measures can reverse the damaged cells creating good cells. Very powerful!

Dr Nyjon Eccles

Transcript of Interview with Kathryn Colas and Dr Nyjon Eccles BSc, MBBS, PhD, MRCP – July 2010

Hello, It's Kathryn Colas here from http://ww.simplyhormones.com and I'm here today to talk to Dr Nyjon Eccles about Infrared Thermal Imaging for the early detection of breast cancer. First of all, I'll give you a brief biography of Dr Eccles so you can see all the different things he's done.

Following his double doctorates (medicine and pharmacology) Dr. Eccles has worked as a general and naturopathic physician with special interest and experience in complementary nutritional treatments that promote well-being and recovery. He significantly expanded his knowledge of complementary medicine by blending research, extensive training and clinical practice. The outcome has been the compilation of an extremely powerful repertoire of treatments and products. He has a special interest in complementary cancer and cellular health therapy and has become well known for his treatment and product innovations in the field of complementary medicine and also for his research based verification of non- conventional treatments.

As the medical Director of a private clinic in Harley Street he has become the UK's leading clinician involved with Medical Infrared Thermal Imaging and particularly its application as a non-invasive tool for early detection and monitoring of breast cancer. Much of his time is spent in research and his reputation is supported by numerous papers and scientific reviews on a wide range of topics related to integrated medicine.

Kathryn Colas: Hello Dr Eccles and Welcome

Dr Eccles: Hello, Good Morning

KC: I'd like to go straight into our discussion if I may and I think the first point I'd like to raise, as a woman is that I feel a radical change is needed, not just in breast cancer awareness but in diagnosis. Is mammography, still the equipment of choice to detect cancer cells and does it detect cancer cells early enough. Certainly from my perspective, I find mammograms barbaric and archaic; a piece of machinery that should be consigned to the recycle yard. What can you tell us …?

NE: Well, the first thing to say is that I don't think we can throw mammography away. That's the first thing to say, it has a place, however, we need to clarify some reservations about this technology and perhaps I can start with that, so what I'm about to say is not in any way to say that this is a useless tool, it has a place but the listeners need to understand that basically, the use of mammography has not really lead to any survival advantage in terms of breast cancer. In other words, the whole screening programme has not improved survival rates, so, we're failing with it. We're not doing what we set out to do which was to reverse or stop breast cancer, at least reduce it. And the reason for this is because on of the problems with mammography is it can only detect a tumour when it is a certain size. A tumour has to be big physically big enough to block enough x-rays for it to appear on the plate by which time it is the size of a small grape. And that actually represents about 500 million cancer cells at that stage. This is not early detection and in fact between 60% and 70% of those that are detected by mammography are already starting to invade (cells) outside of that local space, so this is one of the problems. The other problem with mammography is it's only offered to women, in the UK, at age 50. So what about women who are younger? Some of those, there's an increasing incidence of breast cancer and they're not offered any screening programmes. And the other issue is that once you do detect something it's reasonably late so it has failings and …

KC: I was just going to say, if I can interject there, you were talking about the number of cells so, is that what represents the lump that can be detected by self-analysis and so that is quite a large number of cells, then, even at that stage.

NE: Yes, a lump that is the size of a small olive or a small grape is about 500 million cancer cells

KC: That's huge isn't it

NE: So it's late detection, it's what I'm saying is that one of the problems we have with mammography is that it's too late. We have to be looking for methods which detect a developing cancer much sooner than that if we're going to change the tide. The problem is that we're not changing the tide with mammography, we need to look for an additional tool

KC: Yes. And as you say, it's confirmed by some of the statistics that I've picked up that the risk of surviving is still the same as it was 50 years ago and that's quite a horrendous statistic, really

NE: That, combined with the fact that if you look at the incidence of breast cancer, it's risen by about 80% in the last forty years, in fact it's the same for other cancers. Basically, if you look at all cancers and I know we're talking specifically about breast, but I just want to put this in context. If you look at other cancers the incidence of cancer in men in general, all cancers in men has increased by about 49% in the last forty years and in women its about 41% and that's all cancers and in that context, breast cancer has increased by about 80% in the last forty years, so we're not winning the war.

KC: And do you think the NHS or Department of Health is being a bit slow in recognising that there are alternative pieces of equipment out there that could assist in early detection?

NE: To be honest, yes, I do think so and the way things are, unfortunately, in medicine in terms of the arrangements and the politics is that we are slow to act, particularly in this country. We've known about other technologies, like thermal imaging, for example, for over 30 years now. Admittedly the early technology is not as good as the digital infra-red that's available now. But still, in 1982, look how long ago that is, the FDA, in America, approved thermal imaging to be used adjunctively alongside mammography for detection for breast cancer, now how come if that approval was given that long ago, that we don't see centres everywhere offering it.

KC: Yes, it's so difficult to understand and I even telephone my own local Primary Care Trust to ask the question, could I go for thermal imaging, would they support that. The answer was ‘no'. We hardly had a conversation. I said, well what if you pay your section for what would be the mammography and (I) just top it up for the thermal imaging if there is a difference. I don't know the cost factors, here. But no conversation, ‘goodbye' was the answer, so …

NE: It's a pity…

KC: I was just going to say that as far as I can understand, that thermal imaging can improve detection so can you tell us a little more about thermal imaging and what's involved?

NE: Yes. Thermal imaging, basically is like having a heat picture taken of the breasts. I mean you can use it for other things as well but we're talking about detection of breast cancer, here. It's basically a heat sensor. The camera itself is an infrared detector. So, the first point to make is nothing goes in, there is no radiation which goes into the body. It's really a heat detecting camera, so, therefore, it's non-invasive, completely non-invasive. You can have one every day, no contact is required, no compression of the breasts are required. It's just like having your picture taken; the whole process, which is now automated, is artificial intelligence to do the interpretation side of it as well which increases the sensitivity. The whole process takes about five minutes to do, it's really been honed, now. And as I say we now digital infrared thermal imaging which is sensitive to as little as .03 degrees centigrade, so we can detect very, very small temperature changes. What we're really looking for is heat generated by a developed cancer and if I may just explain this… A cancer, when it's developing, develops a new blood vessel formation around itself to nurture itself and we call that process angiogenesis. It affects about 86% of developing cancers and that new circulation creates heat, so that's one thing; in conjunction with the fact that cancer cells are much more highly active metabolically than normal cells, so that increased activity, metabolic activity, also generates heat, so those two processes are what we are detecting when we're using infra-red technology. And we see those changes much sooner than the small grape size that is first seen on a mammogram, so it does give us, we think, from the studies, a six to ten year earlier detection advantage than something like mammography.

KC: Yes, yes. And I'm glad you touched on the time scale there because I don't think an awful lot of women really understand or appreciate that cancer cells take years to develop. It's not something that happens overnight.

NE: No, that's right, that's right. In fact, that's the point to make there, just to emphasise it is that by the time you detect a tumour on a mammogram, if it's the size of a small grape, it's been there for six to ten years. The problem is, it's not been felt, there have not been any changes in the breast which are flagged up to the woman that there may be a problem, so this is the thing, we need to be going back in time and detecting those changes before they can even be felt in the breast. That's what we've got to try and achieve.

KC: Yes. Because you don't feel symptoms, do you, it's silent, isn't it, like so many of these cancers

NE: Like so many cancers, exactly. That's one of the problems of detection, how do you pick something up if you can't feel it, if there are no signs, if there's no pain associated and often there isn't. It's one of the problems, as you rightly say, with a lot of cancers.

KC: And, so how can women go about teaching themselves to look after themselves better and also asking their own doctor, perhaps about thermal imagery, perhaps we can start a revolution here, with women wanting the actual change, rather than waiting for the system. It seems to me that if a whole group of people get together and do something, they can sometimes move mountains..

NE: I think you're right on that. I foresee, that if a change is going to happen in the whole tide of breast cancer, it's got to come from women acting concertedly to create the changes because it isn't gonna come quickly from the medical powers that be; that's just being straight, and I think you're right, a revolution has to occur amongst women and it's interesting that you point that out because when I first appeared on This Morning television in 2005, October, I spoke for eight minutes about thermal imaging on live television and the number of women who called us, of their own volition, i.e. not talking to their doctors about it; they decided to take matters in their own hands because they saw that there was a technology that might be useful to them. We could not take the calls because there were so many. So it shows you that women are concerned, they want to do something, they want to be pro-active and I think you're right I think there does need to be a revolution on this topic.

KC: Yes, well, look I can only ask our listeners, all the women out there and even the men, join in, let's send out this information to all our own contacts to spread the work and see if we can get something moving on this.

NE: Yes, I think that's a start

KC: Something's got to happen hasn't it

NE: But you did ask me a question which I didn't answer which I think is a two-pronged question because you did say how can women, apart from this technology which is important because as we've already established the studies all show it is earlier detection, it could potentially increase the survival from breast cancer, if it's even combined with mammography by 61%, that's what the studies show, now that's remarkable and that would represent a significant change in the tide from where we're going at the minute, so the thing is, though, suppose you do detect something which you can't feel by thermal image. Let's suppose that a woman has an abnormal thermal image which is not diagnostic, it doesn't mean that she has a cancer but it means that we need to be vigilant and we need to go into preventative action. What are some of the things that she can do. And if I may, just quickly, say, that you do not need to be a sitting duck. A woman, once she has had this early detection, she doesn't just need to be passive, there are things that she can do to reduce her risk and very simple things, for example: if she drinks too much alcohol, she can reduce her alcohol intake; if she's overweight, she can lose weight; if she smokes, she can stop smoking; if she's not eating enough fruit and vegetables; she can increase her fruit and vegetables; if she's using aluminium containing deodorant she can stop and use something more natural. Now, all these things, simple as they sound, can make a profound difference in her long term progress. We've seen this in our clinic. If we find women who have abnormal thermal scans, we advise them on what they can do in making these lifestyle changes. We advise on the appropriate nutrients which are going to help the immune system go into higher gear and actually start to reverse any possible cancerous changes that there might be early on and the outcome of doing all of that is that when we re-image them six months later and then twelve months later, we see abnormal thermal images becoming normal again. So here we see in reality how you can take a woman who may be at high risk and take her off that high risk track completely so she becomes, has normal breasts again. Now no surgery, no pharmaceuticals involved; just simple things that women need to know, how to reduce their risk.

KC: I was just going to say, you mentioned surgery there, so finding abnormal cells doesn't necessarily mean that surgery needs to be the next step

NE: No, because, suppose you have the scenario where you have an abnormal thermal image and that woman goes and has a mammogramme or an ultrasound or an MRI depending on her age and what is appropriate, suppose it doesn't show anything structurally. In other words, nothing you can stick a needle in to, to take some cells. Well you're in a bit of a fix there because you have an abnormal thermal image that shows you have a woman with increased risk but you haven't got a structural scan because maybe what we're seeing isn't big enough to see yet, on a structural scan. So you have a predicament, what are you going to do. There is no surgery that is indicated. You may not be able to find a surgeon to do a blind biopsy. In other words stick a needle in an area where there seems to be a suspicion… because that in itself is an invasive attack on breasts which may increase the risks or may even, there's a lot of debate on this, may serve to spread any cancer cells that there are there. So, the surgical option at that stage, in this scenario, is inappropriate and we need to be looking at well, ‘what else can be done' which will truly reduce that woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Now this conversation we're having now may be the most pertinent part of this discussion as well because, at the end of the day, if breast cancer has increased 80% in the last forty years and we're not stemming the tide, we also don't just need to detect earlier we need to be proactive in what we're doing to stop …

KC: … Preventative measures

NE: Exactly! So these two arguments, the early detection and the proactiveness and lifestyle measures that make a difference need to go hand in hand. Which is perhaps why medicine is not so quick to embrace this technology because if we are detecting earlier, what is the solution to be offered to women if there's nothing to biopsy, so you need to be thinking outside of the box from the medical perspective in order to look for ways that do work that will actually stop cancer in its tracks.

And I'm saying, I believe from what I've seen over the last ten years, that's entirely possible.

KC: Yes, if you go to your GP it becomes naturally medical lead that they have to take some kind of medical action to help resolve the problem

NE: Correct, correct.

KC: And of course, as you say, we've got to extend our viewpoint now and look at other resources. And I was just looking at the stats I've got in front of me, as well and I'm looking at one particular one – with 70% of women with breast cancer now over 50, that's my age group and probably the age group of many of my listeners and I'm looking at the other stats and of course, you're more susceptible to breast cancer the older you become but it seems to me just thinking about it on the level of just being a woman that we look at these stats, and say, well I haven't hit that age group yet, so it's not actually going to happen to me. So that's why I think we've become involved, we've become more susceptible to it and less able to do something about it because we're actually waiting for that point for somebody to detect it in us and we say ‘oh dear, I'm a statistic now'.

NE: Yes, and then it's too late, that's the problem. And the other thing pertinent to that argument that you've just presented is right, is that there is the false assumption that if you don't have a family history of breast cancer, that, actually, you're not at risk. This is wrong, because if you look at the statistics of women who have breast cancer in the UK, it averages about 40, 000 women every year. That's a one in nine incidence amongst women, of breast cancer, which is unacceptable. The thing is, of those women who have it, the percentage who actually have a family history of breast cancer is only about 8%, that's eight. That means 92% of women who have breast cancer do not have a family history of it. So, in other words, it's a false security to think that because you don't have a family history that you cannot become a statistic.

KC: And also, my aunt had breast cancer when she was close to 80 and I think the general consensus among doctors is, that, you know, general practitioners, that is, is that well, you've got to die of something! But who wants to have a disease, you want to die, well you know, I just want to die naturally in my sleep, thank you very much!

NE: Yes, well I'm gonna tell you something else now, that the label of cancer, this label, with conventional thinking, people think when they hear that word ‘cancer' that it's a death sentence. Now I would say this: what I know about cancer as a disease in general, and I've spent a lot of time researching it, is that, certainly in my experience, this is not the case and that cancer does not have to be a killer disease; there are things that can be done which can contain it and I would be bold enough to say this, not just contain it, but even reverse it and those things are not necessarily and in fact, more often than not, are not the sort of conventional toxic therapy that is available now, the non-invasive therapies which many doctors are having success with and so even if you have a cancer it should not be a death sentence there are things that can be done.

KC: Yes, yes, my own theory is, the awful diet that the majority of the population seem to be engaged in and I was one of those as well, with all the processed food and everything and it's very difficult to get off that track but would you agree that nutrition and diet can help keep us healthier longer?

NE: Well, I would say that's probably one of the most important things, actually. From my own research, it is very under estimated because people still think of nutrition as just fuel, you know, that we need to eat to give us energy, to give us protein, we're still thinking in those sorts of terms and even dieticians, to be honest, are still thinking in those sorts of terms. They're still recommending high sugar diets to people with cancer and it's a nonsense because cancer cells, feed off, more than normal cells, high sugar diets, so why aren't we at least giving advice to women with cancer that they should not have a lot of refined carbohydrate and sugar in their diets and with that knowledge, when we do PET scanning (Positron Emission Tomography), it involves injecting radio-active glucose and the cells that appear black on the scan are the ones which take it up most avidly, they are the cancer cells, so knowing that, why aren't we advising women that they shouldn't be eating refined sugars if they have a cancer situation. Simple things like that but to go beyond that, what is even more interesting now, is where we're at with this knowledge and that is that a lot of the plant based nutrients that many of us are so deficient in because we don't eat enough fruit and vegetables in our diet; those plant based nutrients seem to have the ability to reduce our risk of cancer, quite significantly so, as much as 50% in populations. So, you see, now, it's a new dimension, what can you do to reduce your risk? One of the simple answers is to flood your system with a broad range of plant based nutrients.

So, nutrition, it's this whole thing now. I mean I could talk about this for about three days! But what we're really saying is that there are certain plant nutrients and this is really cutting edge information I'm giving you now but why not? We've started, so we might as well finish! Is that the ability of certain plant nutrients to actually alter the way that our genes behave; and our genes determine how our cells behave: how well our cells detox: how well our cells communicate: when that cell should die, etc. It's all important. It's this whole process of cell regulation; and what is cancer? It's unregulated cell growth, it's only a normal cell that's lost its regulatory control. So here we find that a lot of these plant nutrients seem to keep cells regulated and behaving normally, so one of the biggest things we can do to reduce cancers in the long term, whether you have a family history or not, is to flood your system with a broad range of plant based nutrients.

KC: That's very powerful, isn't it? It's quite a small thing to do but it's a very a powerful result.

NE: An extremely powerful result. We've seen it ourselves in our own clinical experience when we do this, as I say, we see thermal images which are abnormal becoming normal and that's in conjunction with some other lifestyle changes that I mentioned earlier and it's exciting because I believe what we're seeing is, we're seeing how we can turn the tide.

KC: Yes. But that's going to be another hill to climb. We're trying to get thermal imaging to be more widely recognised but to change people's whole attitude to diet is a whole new hill to climb, isn't it? It will take time but we'll get there

NE: It will. But if we want to make a difference in the incidence of breast cancer, this is where, I believe, the solution lies.

KC: Yes. That's brilliant, well I'll be putting the word out there then, Dr Eccles, you've got no problems there.

I think we've covered pretty much everything about the thermal imaging, what it can do and how it can detect breast cancer, as well as what women can do to improve their own life styles to reduce the incidence of the growth of bad cancer cells. So, I want to thank you so much for your time, today and for elaborating on these complicated issues of detecting breast cancer

NE: Well, I must thank you, Kathryn, for being proactive in this because the fact that you approached me and wanted to do this interview and what you're trying to do in terms of you're creating the awareness amongst women of how they can be involved in instigating this change. I'd like to say ‘thank you' to you for your efforts in this because I think you're doing sterling work.

KC: Thank you very much!

For our listeners, don't forget, ladies out there, let's start a revolution and get something moving in the Health Service for the benefit of our own health and also, you'll find Dr Eccles contact information at the end of this transcript and, until next time, this is Kathryn Colas, signing off, thank you and Good bye.

Dr Nyjon Eccles: CEO and Medical Director, The Chiron Clinic, 48 Harley Street, London, W1G 9PU http://www.chironclinic.com Tel: [phone]

Kathryn Colas: You'll find lots of information on menopause, including my own personal journey at http://www.simplyhormones.com and do watch ‘Menopause: The Movie' highlighting how relationships are affected at menopause; here's the link: http://www.simplyhormones.com/video.asp and do join me on my blog for my own views on what's going on in the world: http://www.simplyhormonespodcast.com and feel free to comment on my ramblings and podcasts. Last but not least, you can contact me: [e-mail] .

Average Rating: 4.6 out of 5 based on 219 user reviews.