Chris Kresser: I just wrote an article, I think it was published recently, on breast cancer screening. It’s called The Downside of Mammograms. It was published on April 6, and it’s on the Kresser Institute website. It summarizes all of the recent evidence suggesting that mammography may lead to breast cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In that article, I think I discussed thermography a little bit. Yes, I do. Thermography has definitely a high sensitivity and high specificity. There is a concern about a high rate of false positive with thermography, but those false positives may actually be abnormal thermal patterns for telling a future risk of cancer that’s not yet begun to grow into a physically detectable size, and that’s definitely supported by some of the research. I think thermography also really depends on the operator and the interpreter, of course, and if they’re in the Bay Area here, there are a couple of places that physicians like Dr. Hathaway specialize in women’s health, hormone replacement, and breast cancer will refer patients for thermography, I believe. This is not my area of expertise. I have done a fair amount of research and find it in that article. But from my understanding, I think thermography is one of the better alternatives to mammography. It’s a very controversial topic, and we’ve had a number of discussions about it at my local functional medicine group. There are some like Dr. Hathaway, for example, who believe that mammography, when it’s skillfully used in its limitations are understood, can still be a valuable tool. I would agree with that but a lot of it comes down to—there are a lot of issues that are in some ways more societal, social, moral, and individual that inform whether that testing makes sense as much as just the science behind it.