Gainesville Thermography, LLC

References

1. Gofman, J. W. Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major Proven Preventable Cause of this Disease. Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco, 1995.

2. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.

3. Bertell, R. Breast cancer and mammography. Mothering, Summer 1992, pp. 49-52.

4. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Advisory Committee. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Washington, D.C., 1972.

5. Swift, M. Ionizing radiation, breast cancer, and ataxia-telangiectasia. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 86(21): 1571-1572, 1994.

6. Bridges, B. A., and Arlett, C. F. Risk of breast cancer in ataxia-telangiectasia. N. Engl. J. Med. 326(20): 1357, 1992.

7. Quigley, D. T. Some neglected points in the pathology of breast cancer, and treatment of breast cancer. Radiology, May 1928, pp. 338-346.

8. Watmough, D. J., and Quan, K. M. X-ray mammography and breast compression. Lancet 340: 122, 1992.

9. Martinez, B. Mammography centers shut down as reimbursement feud rages on.Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000, p. A-1.

10. Vogel, V. G. Screening younger women at risk for breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 16: 55-60, 1994.

11. Baines, C. J., and Dayan, R. A tangled web: Factors likely to affect the efficacy of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 91(10): 833-838, 1999.

12. Laya, M. B. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88(10): 643-649, 1996.

13. Spratt, J. S., and Spratt, S. W. Legal perspectives on mammography and self-referral. Cancer 69(2): 599-600, 1992.

14. Skrabanek, P. Shadows over screening mammography. Clin. Radiol. 40: 4-5, 1989.

15. Davis, D. L., and Love, S. J. Mammography screening. JAMA 271(2): 152-153, 1994.

16. Christiansen, C. L., et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(20): 1657-1666, 2000.

17. Napoli, M. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: The hidden pitfalls of cancer screening. Am. J. Nurs., 2001, in press.

18. Baum, M. Epidemiology versus scaremongering: The case for humane interpretation of statistics and breast cancer. Breast J. 6(5): 331-334, 2000.

19. Miller, A. B., et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(18): 1490-1499, 2000.

20. Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(16): 1280-1282, 2000.

21. Napoli, M. What do women want to know. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 11-13, 1997.

22. Lerner, B. H. Public health then and now: Great expectations: Historical perspectives on genetic breast cancer testing. Am. J. Public Health 89(6): 938-944, 1999.

23. Gotzsche, P. C., and Olsen, O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355: 129-134, 2000.

24. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49, January 21-23, 1997. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 22: 7-18, 1997.

25. Ross, W. S. Crusade: The Official History of the American Cancer Society, p. 96. Arbor House, New York, 1987.

26. Hall, D. C., et al. Improved detection of human breast lesions following experimental training. Cancer 46(2): 408-414, 1980.

27. Smigel, K. Perception of risk heightens stress of breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85(7): 525-526, 1993.

28. Baines, C. J. Efficacy and opinions about breast self-examination. In Advanced Therapy of Breast Disease, edited by S. E. Singletary and G. L. Robb, pp. 9-14. B. C. Decker, Hamilton, Ont., 2000.

29. Leight, S. B., et al. The effect of structured training on breast self-examination search behaviors as measured using biomedical instrumentation. Nurs. Res. 49(5): 283-289, 2000.

30. Worden, J. K., et al. A community-wide program in breast self-examination. Prev. Med. 19: 254-269, 1990.

31. Fletcher, S. W., et al. How best to teach women breast self-examination: A randomized control trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 112(10): 772-779, 1990.

32. Associated Press. FDA approves use of pad in breast exam. New York Times, December 25, 1995, p. 9Y.

33. Gehrke, A. Breast self-examination: A mixed message. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92(14): 1120-1121, 2000.

34. Thomas, D. B., et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: Methodology and preliminary results. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 89: 355-365, 1997.

35. Baines, C. J., Miller, A. B., and Bassett, A. A. Physical examination: Its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 63: 1816-1822, 1989.

36. Lewis, T. Women's health is no longer a man's world. New York Times, February 7, 2001, p. 1.

37. Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., and Wall, C. Correspondence. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93(5): 396, 2001.

38. Kuroishi, T., et al. Effectiveness of mass screening for breast cancer in Japan. Breast Cancer 7(1): 1-8, 2000.

39. Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest «non-profit» institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29(3): 565-578, 1999.

40. Epstein, S. S., and Gross, L. The high stakes of cancer prevention. Tikkun 15(6): 33-39, 2000.

41. Epstein, S. S. The Politics of Cancer Revisited. East Ridge Press, Hankins, N.Y., 1998.

42. Ramirez, A. Mammogram reimbursements. New York Times, February 19, 2001.

43. John, L. Digital imaging: A marketing triumph. Breast Cancer Action Newsletter, No. 62, November-December 2000.

44. Tarkan, L. An update that matters? Mammography's next step is assessed. New York Times, January 2, 2001, p. D5.

45. Miller, A. B. The role of screening in the fight against breast cancer. World Health Forum 13: 277-285, 1992.

46. Mittra, I. Breast screening: The case for physical examination without mammography. Lancet 343(8893): 342-344, 1994.

47. Greenlee, R. T. Cancer Statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J. Clin. 51(1): 15-36, 2001.

48. Brenner, D. J, et al. Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation? Int. J. Radiat. Biol 2002, Vol 78, No. 12, 1065-1067.

49. Heyes, G.J. and Mill, A. J. The Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X Rays and Atomic Bomb Spectrum Radiation. Radiation Research 162, 120-127 (2004)