Head Office: 0845 519 5971

Official Statement - 16th March 2020 

In light of inaccurate and misleading media coverage, I would like to provide clarification on the court case that SyncThermology and I, as its Director, have been involved in.

I would like to highlight the following facts about this case: 

1. Thermography is a method by which the temperature of skin is imaged. It is 100% non-invasive.

2. Thermography and its potential to identify abnormalities in human beings is not my invention. There is a whole industry offering this service, with variable levels of equipment not just in the UK, but worldwide. In 2008 I purchased a thermal imaging camera and was trained in clinical thermography for humans by my then manufacturer and training provider.

3. At all stages I relied upon the information and advice given to me by the manufacturer of the camera. The camera was sold to me and other individual businesses as a dual-purpose device enabling me to continue to deliver my human clinics as well as developing my animal imaging work. At all stages images were sent to medical doctors and veterinary surgeons who provided interpretation. Trading Standards dropped all charges against me and SyncThermology relating to the use of the Vet2000 in human medicine, under direction from the judge I was found not guilty.


4. SyncThermology and I were found not guilty of 14 out of the 16 charges brought by Trading Standards. As previously stated, the 2 charges I pleaded guilty to related to errors in historic marketing material.

5. I have never claimed or stated anywhere that thermography could detect or diagnose cancer- it was always an additional service to compliment traditionally accepted methods of medicine and at all stages clients were encouraged to see their GPs. For absolute clarity, my charge did not relate to the diagnosis of breast cancer nor was the validity of breast thermography trialled.

6. The consumer charge that I accepted responsibility for was in relation to a single typographical error that occurred on a section of my human imaging website which stated that DITI could help to detect breast abnormalities 8-20 years earlier instead of 8-10. All material published by my human imaging business has only ever correctly stated that the technology could help to detect abnormalities. It has never been claimed that the imaging service could provide diagnosis of any sort.

7. The single charge connected to SyncThermology was specific to advertising conducted in 2011-2012. This advertising was in relation to an educational association that we were attempting to set up and reference to another training body. Due to several factors this association did not come to fruition, but it was referenced in some of SyncThermology’s marketing material for a short period. I fully accepted that this content should not have been referenced.

8. At no time have I wilfully misled, and I apologise wholeheartedly for the mistakes made; in relation to the charge against SyncThermology, I was 21, new to the business and extremely eager to progress. These oversights are historical in nature, have no bearing on the SyncThermology offering today or its committed technicians. Painful lessons have been learnt and these mistakes have not and will not be repeated. 
 
My focus is now on my company, family and the professional team that have been extremely supportive throughout this difficult process. Despite this experience, my passion for my work remains. I am committed to ensuring that we continue to advance applications, research and our imaging service to the animal industry.

Sophie Gent, SyncThermology Ltd