Flores Sylvia J MD

I have been seeing Dr. Flores for over 20 years. She is caring, kind and listens to your concerns. When I had a hard time getting pregnanct, she was so gentle explaining all my options. But, without the need of all that anxiety of trying out different approaches I got preganant. It was like a special family member giving me the news, she was genuinly so excited for me. I can say her gentle demeanor makes her so unique in every aspect. She is simply an «Awesome» physician.

Callous, disrespectful, uncaring and interculturally incompetent: July 22, 2015, Dr. Flores performed an abnormally forceful manual breast exam which has caused extensive pain persisting into February 16, 2016. During that office visit, Dr. Flores told me a story about a woman who had pain under a nipple but was in denial, and that it turned out to be breast cancer – Attempting to instill, and exploit, the anxiety, if not terror, that women are known to have about breast cancer, for no other purpose than to cause compliance with poor, if not harmful, diagnostic modalities at MGH, known to result in unnecessary medical procedures; ordered, against my well-​grounded objections, a mammogram at MGH, failed to obtain a needed ultrasousound that I expressly requested, intentionally violated patient right of access to safe cancer screening.
G. Stehle, et al, Br J. Cancer (1999), in Mammographic Compression, A Force to Be Reckoned With, states:
” In response to injury, serum or wound fluid is formed to stimulate tissue repair. If the wound is sterile, immune cytotoxic responses are not required and only cellular regeneration is necessary. Thus, the mitogenic properties of serum make it an excellent growth medium for tumour cells. However, serum-​stimulated tumour cell growth is not simply an in vitro phenomenon, but occurs in vivo as well — as demonstrated in a recent article in this journal (Abramovitch et al, 1999). The investigators examined the effect of injected wound fluid on the growth and vascularization of implanted tumour spheroids in nude mice. They found that wound fluid from sites of injury was directly mitogenic to tumour cells and led to accelerated tumour growth, and that such fluid may trigger ‘the angiogenic switch of avascular, dormant microtumours’. In humans, an association between physical injury and the subsequent develop– ment/​progression of breast and other cancers has long been suspected (Coley, 1911).
We are concerned that the potential compressive injury resulting from mammography could augment the growth dynamics of dormant or slow growing tumours (van Netten et al, 1994). The ‘discomfort’ induced by mammographic compression is not trivial (Poulos and Rickard, 1997), nor is the more vigorous compressive follow-​up performed on women with suspicious mammograms. … During compression (up to 200 N or 45 lbs), the less dense fatty tissue will easily redistribute, however, this leaves the brunt of compressive force on the denser tumour tissue.“
Medical reasons for not wanting a mammogram: not merely diagnostic inutility for dense tissue, its high rate of false negatives and false positives resulting in surgery, radiation treatment and chemotherapy, with their own resultant harms, but that medical geneticists find low-​dose ionizing radiation causes double strand breaks in tumor suppressor DNA and DNA metastasis suppressor DNA – the DNA repair pathways. This alteration of the DNA repair pathways can be mutagenic, which in turn can cause malignant tumors.
So people in the breast cancer business are irradiating the 22 types of DNA that medical geneticists describe as related to suppression/​development of breast cancer without ever (ever) performing any preliminary genetic test for susceptibility to DNA breaks that can result in malignant tumors and metastasis.
Mammography is a low-​validity test, of extremely negligible validity for women with dense tissue; results in an unacceptably high rate of false negatives and unacceptably high rate of false positives followed by medically unnecessary and injurious surgeries, e. g, mastectomies, lumpectomies, biopsies, additional exposure to radiation and chemotherapy. In that mammograms cannot image tumors in dense breast tissue and finds tumors when it is in many cases so large as the finding is too late, dense breast tissue is considered more susceptible to tumors, there is no justification for referring such a patient for a mammogram.
In what way do the conclusions of medical genetics studies on the effects of low-​dose ionizing radiation of tumor-​suppressor genes, in any way resemble Dr. Flores’ statement that mammograms carry no more risk «than a trip on a plane or a day at the beach?
» «Do No Harm,» «Tell the Truth,» and «Patients above profits» — These rules are being intentionally violated.
Dr. Flores, in referring me to the MGH breast clinic, misled me to believe that there I would receive an ultrasound and/​or MRI, not disclosing to me that that clinic would participate in this coercion by stating that I could not have an ultrasound or MRI unless I first had a mammogram. And in what way is a mammogram of a woman with heterogenously dense breast tissue, known to fail to obtain any diagnostically valuable imaging, an «adjunct» to anything?
Written informed consent for mammography should be written into human experimentation law, because it has potential to cause the very harms it purports to look for.

She is caring, kind and listens to your concerns. No rushing to get you in and out. She did a thorough exam and also calmed some fears I was having about symptoms. I highly recommend her as a OBGYN!

Great doctor! Respects your time, is very caring, really listens to you and actually answers your questions! One of the best.