AMAS Diagnostic Test For Cancer

Antimalignin Antibody Screen

The most accurate early cancer marker, developed by Sam Bogoch, M.D., Ph.D., was introduced to the medical community in 1990, and it is now available for any physician in North America.

The test analyzes a sample of blood to reveal whether antibodies to cancer are present. It is regarded very accurate in the early detection of any cancer. It measures the amount present of a specific antibody, anti-malignin, an antibody that acts against the inner protein layer of a cancer cell, called malignin. The test was approved by the FDA as early as 1977, but it wasn't until 1994 that the clinical trials with over 4000 patients were completed, validating the test's effectiveness. AMAS has been found to be 95% accurate on the first test, and 99% when repeated. It can detect cancer up to 19 months before conventional medical tests can find it.

Please note: in cases of advanced cancer, the antimalignin antibody in the organism is wiped out, and there is nothing for the test to pick up. In other words, with cancer that is already detectable by conventional methods, AMAS is useless, and it is likely to give a false negative reading.

AMAS is an invaluable tool for early detection of cancer, as well as for monitoring a patient's status in remission. The cost of an AMAS test is $135 (1998 price), follow-up test: $85.

For further information, your doctor can call: Oncolab, Inc. 36 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02215. Tel: 716-536-0850.

From: http://healpain.net/articles/mammog.html

Mammography
Is there is a Better Way to Detect Breast Cancer?

"It may interest those concerned with breast cancer to know that there is another method for detecting breast cancer (not thermography) that is as good or better than mammography.

In a controlled blind study of 700 high risk patients performed 14 years ago by the University of Miami School of Medicine, it was found that scanning the breast with infrared light and an infrared camera was at least or more sensitive and specific than mammography ("Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast" The American Surgeon, March 1986, Vol. 52, No. 3).

Infrared breast cancer detection does not subject the patient to ionizing radiation (X-rays). In a new (1999) 799 page study, John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., whose medical and scientific credentials fill five pages, states "Between 83 percent and 90 percent of all breast cancer can be attributed to medical radiation." see: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/.

Because the infrared scanning method to detect breast cancer does not use X-rays, it could be repeated every month in high risk women. Mammography can not be done that often because of the radiation. Even though the advocates of mammography do not like to admit it, many women developed breast cancer that grew fast enough between mammograms to require a mastectomy.

All of the cancers found by examination and by mammography in the 700 women were found by Infrared light scanning of the breast. The I.L.S. method also detected three cancers that were missed by mammography. This was not statistically significant but very significant for those three women
.
Infrared scanning to detect breast cancer is not widely available. Why then is this safe and better method of detecting breast cancer not being utilized?

It is human nature to resist change. The wheels turn ponderously slow. Many new medical technologies are not accepted until a whole generation of doctors (who are trained one way) are replaced by new doctors with different training. There is also the element of "protecting ones turf." Oncologists and Radiologists, who are the cancer experts, will not easily yield their domain to an instrument that uses no radiation (which could be used by doctors with different medical training). Doctors who are not radiologists also do not want the liability of mis-diagnosing something that might turn out to be malignant. Last, it is a question of medical economics - expensive mammography instruments must be paid for even though infrared breast scanning systems cost less. For these reasons women are not getting what is best for them.

I called on a doctor reputed to be one of the leading breast cancer experts in the United States. When I told him there may be a better way to detect breast cancer than mammography, he replied, "That's bull shit!" I showed him a copy of the Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast study and told him it was a blind study of 700 high risk women done in a U.S. medical school and published in an AMA Journal. He then repeated, "It's still bull shit," and made it clear that this was the end of the conversation. So much for new cancer discoveries being accepted.

Even though there is a better way to detect breast cancer, it is infinitely more important to prevent the disease than detect it. Thanks to John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., (book: Preventing Breast Cancer http://www.ratical.com/radiation /cnr/pbc/indexT.html ) and Singer and Grismaijer, (book: Dressed to Kill, The link Between Bra-Wearing and Breast Cancer), I believe we now know how to prevent much if not most breast cancer. Like the infrared study, these discoveries are also being rejected or covered up.

I will send a reprint of the "Infrared Light Scanning of the Breast" cancer study, and a review of the above books, to anyone who sends three dollars (for postage and copying) to:

Darrell J. Stoddard, Founder - Pain Research Institute
266 East 3200 North Provo, UT 84604 U.S.A.
Phone: 801-377-6900
(call and check on the price and availability)

TOP