Is Your Treatment Working?
As mentioned previously, one of the first questions I hear from people indicating they understand the difference between quantitative FMTVDM and qualitative imaging approaches is "Does this mean I can use FMTVDM to measure whether my treatment is working?"
​
The answer to that question is YES!
​
All treatments, independent upon who is prescribing them, are or should be, based upon restoring health. Restoring health means restoring homeostasis and regional blood flow and metabolism, which can be quantitatively measured using FMTVDM.
These FMTVDM measurements provide a standardized measuring scale of outcomes, like a rheostat for lights, fine tuning information to define where you lie on the health spectrum in contrast to a light switch that is either on (yes) or off (no).
Changes in health lie on a continuum of InflammoThrombotic Immunologic Responses ITIR producing incremental changes in health known as(ITIR) Disease (ITIRD).
Simply stated - you don't go from one end of the spectrum of health to the other without going through transitional ITIRD states. Changes in health that FMTVDM can measure.
​
These are the same changes in health you will go through following treatment. You will either improve, get worse, or potentially stay the same - either way, FMTVDM can measure the result.
Unfortunately, no single treatment works for everyone. This is true independent of whether we are talking about infections like COVID, Coronary Artery Disease (CAD), Cerebrovascular Disease (CVA) - what some people call strokes and mini strokes - hypertension (high blood pressure), cancer, or any other health problem. In fact, what works for one person, may make someone else's problem worse.
​​
SOY PROTEIN - A CASE IN POINT
​
If you read enough material, you will find people who will tell you soy is good for breast cancer, while other people will tell you soy will make breast cancer worse.
​
As a general rule, when I hear such opposing positions, my first response isn't to say someone is right or wrong; but, to ask why both sides could be right and yet have such diametrically opposing positions. Once you find the answer to that question, you will discover a deeper underlying truth.
​
The following two cases show just such a dichotomy. Two different women taking the exact same soy product; yet one got better and one got worse.
​
The first example, shows a woman who originally underwent FMTVDM quantitative imaging in March of 2000. Her initial results are shown in the bottom two panels of the following set of images. Both of her breasts showed ITIRD, frequently referred to as inflammation. The ITIRD changes in her right breast showed a FMTVDM value of 176 while those in her left breast measuring 171.
She decided to try a soy product marketed for women by the manufacturer as being beneficial for women's breast health. He goal was to reduce her inflammatory (ITIRD) breast problems.
​
Following 8-months of treatment, she had a repeat FMTVDM to determine if the soy protein was helping. These repeat measurements were obtained in November of 2000. The measured results revealed improvement in health of both breasts, with the right breast going from 176 maximal count activity (MCA) to 150 MCA. The left breast went from 171 MCA to 157.
​
For this woman, for her particular health problem, she saw successful improvement in the state of her breast health.
​
She would tell you soy protein is good for breast health.
Another woman decided during this same time period, to try the same soy product following her initial FMTVDM evaluation in April of 1999.
While there were no significant changes noted in her left breast over the course of her FMTVDM studies, the right breast showed progression of disease; beginning with a normal value of 108 MCA in April of 1999.
Her first comparison FMTVDM was done 14-months later in June of 2000. During the June 2000 FMTVDM study, she showed deterioration in breast health on the right side, with a MCA of 130.
Her next examination was 6-months later in December of 2000 at which time her right breast health continued to deteriorate - despite no changes in the left breast - with a MCA of 184.
Her fourth evaluation occurred 4-months later in April of 2001 at which time she demonstrated early transitional breast cancer; Ductal Carcinoma In-Situ (DCIS) with a MCA of 240.
​
If you were to ask this woman, she would tell you soy protein was bad for her breast health; at least for her right breast.
Both women were adamant in what they thought before beginning their treatment of choice. In the end they were just as firm in their convictions about whether soy protein was good or bad for breast health.
​
Who is right?
​
The answer - both of them. For one of them it proved to be helpful, for the other harmful. Finding out which it was for both women required the ability to measure changes in the ITIRD present in their breast tissue.
​
Clearly, what worked for one woman produced health problems for the other. While this does not explain why the women had different results, it does provides the quantitative method needed to measure their outcome differences.
​
It also allows us to investigate these differences by knowing which women fit into which category of treatment outcome.
​
This is true for any health problem and treatment measured using FMTVDM. The ability to finally separate who is benefiting from a treatment and who isn't. With this knowledge we can then look for what is different between the two groups of people without experimenting on them. Their FMTVDM results have already provided the critical information guiding their treatment while giving us the opportunity to learn from them why some people improve and others do not.
​
FOLLOWING THE COURSE OF SERIAL CANCER TREATMENTS
​
The following example emphasizes the importance of clinical and diagnostic follow up with FMTVDM. It also emphasizes the importance of understanding that simply because a person has undergone mastectomy, in this case a bilateral mastectomy, it does not mean you are no longer at risk of developing cancer.
It also emphasizes the difference between being free of cancer and being a 5-year cancer survivor. Being a cancer survivor does not mean you are free of cancer or that you will never need to worry about cancer again. It simply means that at least at the 5-year marker, no one and/or no qualitative test, could find the cancer and in this instance, there was no way for her to undergo a mammogram given her prior bilateral mastectomy.
​
The woman we are looking at had previously worked as a white house operator. She had been free of breast cancer for more than 5-years. She was a 5-year survivor.
She was referred for FMTVDM evaluation after being told she had too little breast tissue to image by mammography, following her bilateral mastectomy.
​
Her initial FMTVDM study revealed a breast cancer in the left breast immediately, immediately under her skin with a MCA value of 449.
She began both chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Four months later FMTVDM was repeated. The results showed a reduction from 449 to 311 - reduced from her pre-treatment value of 449 MCA; but, still well within the range for cancer given the FMTVDM imaging sequence protocol used for her.
Nine months later, her third FMTVDM study demonstrated both the obvious qualitative visual disappearance of her cancer, but more importantly, it showed a quantitative reduction in the regional tissue metabolism blood flow with a MCA value of 180 (ITIRD of "mere inflammation").
​
Better than cancer but ...
While there is no guarantee that her cancer will not return, the ability to measure changes in breast - and other - tissue using FMTVDM provides the quantitative tool needed to not only find cancer and the transitional changes in tissue involved with the eventual development of her cancer; but, FMTVDM provided the quantitative tool needed to measure the effect of treatment.
The type of quantitative imaging that allows patients and their physicians to focus on treatments that work - saving time, money, resources and lives.
​
Can FMTVDM tell you if your treatment is working?
​
The answer is YES.