Old Post from Myspeezy - Dumb Jock

rookie on myspace alert

this guy is some kind of 155 lb ultimate badass cage fighter

read this whole conversation hahahahahaha

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: SpecialTechnique.net + Ugly Bill (3956780)
To: (407549)
Date: 8/28/2009 11:42:46 PM
Subject: i can't believe this


http:../../..www...naturalnews...com/..026934_..he
alth_..public_..health_..quarantine.html

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Taste the Derek (407549)
To: SpecialTechnique.net + Ugly Bill (3956780)
Date: Aug 28, 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: i can't believe this


I cant believe how many damn bulletins you post OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
BROTHA CHILLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
Its a big pain when I wnat to see my friends bulletinsbut your 10 in a row bulletins have taken over....
PLEASE calm down with the so many posts!
try combining them instead of makin yoursef lok like a tweaker....
PEACE

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: SpecialTechnique.net + Ugly Bill (3956780)
To: Taste the Derek (407549)
Date: Aug 29, 2009 3:20 AM
Subject: RE: i can't believe this


just delete me

or, perhaps, read the content of one of my posts

they are never surveys and always useful


------his reply----------
I started to read a couple so I know the contents.. I didnt say they are surveys i said DONT DO A FUCKING MILLION IN A ROW BROTHA! tone it down a bit....this is MYSPACE...you think everyone is reading EACH AND EVERY ONE? your giving yourself a bit to much credit brotha......
TO MUCH DRAMA .....
you got WAY to much time on your hands sitting around posting THAT many bulletins like we are all just sitting waiting to read your words of wisdom.
I will delete you for sure.
have a good day!
D

---------my reply--------------
there are absolutely no standards or rules on myspace other than the rules myspace enforces

and basic human compassion (for me)

you don't set any kind rules around here buddy

if i think something is important, i will fill everyone's entire lil bulletin space with my bulletins

so they think it might be important

if they think one or two extra clicks(a huge pain in the ass i think you called it) is too much to see their friends' bulletins, they should use facebook

do you think myspace is only for absolutely wasting time talking about whatever bar you go to, or other stuff that's self centered and doesn't have anything to do with waking people up?

i think it's ok to post 1000 bulletins in a row, if it involves educating people

i don't know whats on your mind, perhaps you pick someone every week to have a problem with?

precious seconds of our lives get wasted in ignorance and pettiness



------------his reply---------------
hahahahahah your a douche ...get a life mister educator....hahahahaha




------------my reply
it only takes a minute to post 10 bulletins

hahaha yourself

a life... like being mean to people on myspace?

totally, i'm all over it

-------------------------------------------------------

i deleted him as a friend of course. seems he forgot to delete me, or maybe he wanted to have some more problems with my bulletins.

i also deleted someone who took his side in the matter, stupid aggressive people get deleted in groups.

the american mind, and overall health, are in a dangerous emergency. i don't want everyone to be all gloom and doom, i just want everyone to add ninja skills and awareness to their lifestyle

if you hate my multiple posts, and its a "huge pain in the ass" to click 2 more times, just delete me as a friend, or go use facebook.

thanks to my friends and supporters, and a big FUCK YOU to locker room photographers in the MMA industry...

Special Technique's Manager

Special Technique's manager will have a lot of responsibility, but very little work that is scheduled. We are a group of artists who all have a full life BESIDES our Special Technique projects, but we see the need to develop the company into the monster it's becoming.

Several areas of the company need management. The two main active branches of our focus currently involve music and tattoo devices. These two projects are seemingly unrelated, but once you get involved, you'll see it's all just art. We are here to reach people.

The Dj's representing Special Technique are Peacemaker(myself), MK Ultra, and Rebe||ion. We all deliver the goods in public performances. We are all public figures and active in the So Cal music scene. Having a company/crew identity will help us organize our music careers and also allow us to charge more for performances. Upcoming projects for the DJ department include web presence development, hosting events, and the release of product such as garments, mix cds, and original tunes.

The tattoo machine branch of Special Technique is becoming a household name in the tattoo industry. We are officially backordered, and probably will be for life. We are looking for the right person to help us streamline our activities and be more effective. We need website/facebook work, paperwork organized, supplies ordered and picked up, phone calls made, and notes taken. We need an ongoing to-do list and someone to follow us around reminding us. This is just quick overview, as there are too many tasks to mention. Our minds are so attuned to the task of making better tattoo machines that it is very tough for us to get the office work done.

If you think you have the right personality for this job, we want to hear about it. Remember, we are artists, and need to be treated as such. We will probably not be the best bosses, so it's better if you are getting involved for personal/artistic/ethical reasons. We are looking for someone who sees our company's potential, and is willing to help us work out the bugs.

The main thing we want with our manager is a solid, honest relationship. We will be developing the company together, and putting in time together. We will do everything we say we're going to do, and we will tell you 'no' if we can't handle something. We expect the same in return.

You must have a car and some freedom of schedule. You must also not use hard drugs. You must be willing and able to work at some tattoo conventions and music events. You must be sociable, but not a reckless partier.

Email inquiries to director@specialtechnique.net.

To the yahoos and vikings.

clearly, racism against americans is not the answer for any culture - we'll just kill them off if they have a problem with us. we can go on and on about how what we have going on here in america is so precious but really all we do is stomp on other cultures to preserve our playstation couch time. our freedom is literally at the expense of other cultures, and the environment. it's ugly....

the cia, not 'we the people,' have been in afghanistan controlling the heroin trade since waaaaay before 1992, do some research. i love what the declaration of independece means, but i hate the ugly joke that america has turned into. the govt and obama are owned by the bomb, oil and chem companies. politicians are all OWNED and voting is a sham. obama has little power to do anything. he is a media package and nothing more. the world is an enclosed shell, once we KICK THE ASS of other cultures YEAH AMERICA GO like a bunch of fucking simple cowboys, we gotta sit back and realize we have created generations of new enemies, and we're stuck on this rock with them. duh. we must show our respect for other cultures by NOT supporting our govt with our dollars. the govt's oil agenda has left you with generations of enemies, and you want to CHAMPION THE CAUSE OF OUR GOVT? america, fuck yeah, that's an ignorant way to look at it. only your dollar controls the govt. not voting or even the concept of 'freedom.' only what you spend dollars on makes a difference. trash your television, and do more than 5 minutes worth of google research. the 3 videos you have all probably watched concerning global politics were the TOP 3 VIDEOS i guess, and that's PAID PROGRAMMING not a real view of what's going on in the world. stop buying plastic, eat organic, and spend locally. cut off the machine from your blood and man hours. only in this way can we show the little terrorist babies of the future that it's our SHAM GOVT and not we the people that turned the middle east into a parking lot.

only 2 solutions i can see to fix the ugliness of our species. population control, and another main fuel source. accusing me of being communist is moot. communism is a relic. it's all going to turn into capitalism. there is organic free range beef, for thinking folks who eat beef. i'm not concerned with utopia, only realtime real world solutions. ignoring repercussions in the name of 'we are this and that greatness' has brought us to this very fucked up moment in history. acting like 'hahaha i'm a redneck viking that takes whatever i want from the world' has made the world a fucked up place you're leaving for your kids to inherit. good job, vikings. good job, conquistadors. i'm sure your kids will appreciate the narrow, selfish viewpoint you'll pass on to them. i for one hate having a nice life at the expense of the environment. eat organic so the world is less ugly. conserve fuel so the world doesn't burn. be charitable and humble...

Machines In Stock - June 2010

These are the machines we had in stock at the time of this blog post.

1. Sillver Sub/Hacker Hybrid - A giant stroke shader. Kinda slow but smooth too, not peppery. You can do wash real fast with larger groups 13+ mags etc.. Good amount of give but still the firm push of a rotary.

2. Silver Sub Ultra Light no. 2 - Another Giant stroke shader, more peppery and stabby than above. Super fun for gooey pastel colors like Intenze fleshtones etc. Also good for robotic perfect pepper shading.

3. Gold and Silver Edition no.3 - More big stroke with the smoothness here. Similar to first machine in list. Very bottom heavy, if you're concerned about perfect balance this one's for you.

4. The Cannon no. 2 - Ridiculously TITS outliner. So much fun I couldn't believe it. Whizzzzz really fast and painless and sooooo quiet. Ok I'm boasting sorry :]

5. The Nameless One - Giant stroke shader, and I mean giant. I think I measured 7 millimeters! You really feel like you are paddling a canoe when you operate this thing. Pretty smooth and painless but I still wouldn't try grey wash with anything less than a 15 mag or so. Wash with a 9 mag in this machine would be a pain in the ass haha. This one will drive a 25 mag all day long without changing.

Prices are based on how much we like the machine sentimentally, how much time went into it, and what premium market prices are for top notch tattoo machines. The functionality is the same, 100 percent on all machines. They are sculptures, in a way...

Ugly Bill at Avalon Tattoo Inc. in PB

I now work at Avalon Tattoo in Pacific Beach, San Diego. My hours are noon-8pm, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday until further notice. Avalon Tattoo is full of amazing artists. Besides myself, the NEWEST member of the crew is FOUR YEARS DEEP at the shop, so it's a very strong tattoo family. I'm honored to be included.



The shop rate is $150 an hour. Avalon Tattoo Inc. is a very tightly-run ship. When it's tattoo time, we don't play around. I expect to sit down and work for 8 straight hours during every shift.



I would prefer to be TATTOOING ONLY while I'm on my shift. I would like to get all your artwork and planning done ahead of time so we can have a very productive session.



If you have a tattoo project by me that was started BEFORE I began working at Avalon, I got clearance from the shop manager to make special arrangements for you. This applies to you only, and not any new clients. Please speak to me privately about this.



Definitely stop by Avalon Tattoo if you're in the neigborhood. Please remember, I'll usually have my nose in some intense project while I'm on shift.



See you at Avalon!

Ugly Bill Tuning a Tattoo Machine - Specialtechnique.net

At the time of this post, this video has about 24000 views...

NO MAMMOGRAMS! There are better ways.

Text and references by Mike Adams(www.naturalnews.com)

While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.

The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234

For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587

Text and references by Mike Adams(www.naturalnews.com)