radiation

  1. [INSANE] Mainstream plots to DELIBERATELY expose you to MORE radiation

    There’s ONE THING standing between you and a potential case of cancer years from now….

    So naturally, the mainstream wants to LITERALLY strip it right off your body!

    There’s a new push by the establishment to do away with the lead aprons used during imaging tests.

    They’re what’s supposed to stop stray radiation beams from going where they shouldn’t.

    During dental X-rays, these bibs could give you at least a little (better than nothing!) protection from conditions such as thyroid cancer.

    For scans lower down, those same aprons will protect your “junk” from some of the nightmare cancers we all fear.

    And for all scans, in general, it can protect your bones, organs, and more from radiation… cellular damage… and disease.

    But a group of radiologists now says it’s time to DO AWAY with them.

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong???

    What imaging tests REALLY do to you

    There’s absolutely no denying it… not even from the most mainstream of all mainstream voices.

    Americans are exposed to far too much radiation…

    Especially from imaging tests such as X-ray and CT scans.

    There’s also no denying that all that radiation leads to cancer in some people, years later.

    One study found CT scans done in just the year 2007 alone would lead to 29,000 future cancers.

    Given that it’s now 13 years later, people are almost certainly living with those cancers right now… and some may have died from them.

    For what?

    Not as much as you’d think, given the risks… as studies show that many imaging tests are completely unnecessary.

    What I’m getting at here, is virtually EVERYONE agrees on two things.

    • Radiation is dangerous.
    • We’re exposed to far too much of it.

    But instead of cutting that exposure, they’re cooking up a plan to INCREASE it.

    Because as I mentioned, now they want to do away with lead aprons, claiming they don’t help as much as people think.

    The new report claims the aprons are:

    • Difficult to position: When they’re not placed right, they won’t protect what they’re supposed to.
    • Could block the area being screened: That could lead to another test and more radiation overall.
    • Might mess up the machine’s automated exposure controls: It could detect the thick apron and automatically fire off more radiation to get through it.

    Notice the issue here? NOT ONE of these problems suggests lead aprons are ineffective against radiation when used right.

    The key is in those last three words… when used right.

    Seems to me the best, safest, and easiest solution would be to make sure EVERYONE using these machines is trained correctly… and that the “automatic” settings are re-automated.

    But this is the mainstream… and they love to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    So, here’s my advice…

    If your doc wants an imaging test, ask if you REALLY need it… or if there’s a “wait and see” option.

    If he really needs an image, an ultrasound or MRI may do the trick in some cases – and neither of those uses radiation.

    And if you DO need an X-ray or CT, don’t trust ANYONE who says you don’t need a lead bib. Insist on wearing it for your own protection.

    In Your Corner,

    Dr. Allan Spreen

  2. Four reasons to skip your annual mammogram

    Last month, an independent task force came out with a blasphemous recommendation for women: You can wait until you're 50 to get your first mammogram. And even then, you don't need to get one every year. Just every other year.

    The truth is, I'm not just in favor of cutting back on mammograms. If I had my way, we'd throw the test out all together. A far more accurate test should take its place. More on that in a moment.

    But first, let's look at three reasons why mammograms fail to protect women...

    Reason #1: Radiation
    First off, a mammogram is an x-ray of the breast. And it's an established fact (though the American Cancer Society doesn't want to admit it) that each test generates a huge dose of radiation. In fact, each "life-saving" mammogram generates 1 rad (radiation-absorbed doses) of exposure. And even just 1 rad can be harmful.

    According to Dr. Frank Raucscher, the former Director of the National Cancer Institute, every rad of exposure increases your lifetime risk of breast cancer by 1 percent. That's for women ages 35 to 50. Other experts put the risk even higher. Especially if you got your first mammogram in the 1970s when each test delivered 5 to 10 rads of exposure.

    Over a lifetime, you could actually increase your risk of breast cancer by 30 to 40 percent just by following your well-intentioned doctor's advice and getting annual tests.

    But the radiation's not the only thing you need to know when it comes to mammograms...

    Reason #2: Trauma to the breast

    Anyone who's had a mammogram can tell you, it's not a fun experience. The procedure painfully compresses your breasts. And this kind of intense trauma, year after year, can liberate tumor cells that your body might have kept contained.

    This isn't theory: I spent two years in surgical pathology, and had to process mastectomy specimens directly from the operating room. Many times I found a perfectly straight dotted line of small tumors extending from the main tumor mass to the skin surface...clearly the precise track of a needle bi

    Reason #3: False negatives, false positives, and over diagnosis

    Even the federal government's task force has admitted that annual testing only pays off for a very small number of women in their 40s. In fact, if you're younger than 50, annual mammograms most often lead to false positives and unnecessary biopsies.

    In women age 50 to 74, routine mammograms often lead to "over diagnosis." This means that while mammograms do find small tumors in this age group of women, many of the tumors would never have caused a problem or "shortened a woman's life."

    A recent New York Times article took this idea a step further. The article stated, "...some researchers estimate that as many as one-third of all cancers picked up by screening would not be fatal even left untreated."

    The story goes on to quote Laura J. Esserman, M.D., a breast surgeon. She argues that mammograms often catch slow-growing types of cancer that may not need treatment. But they can miss aggressive, deadly types of cancer that need treatment. In fact, overall mammograms miss up to 20 percent of malignant breast cancer.

    But there's one more reason why I'm against mammograms...

    Reason #4: Give your body a chance to heal itself

    Last year I told you about a major mammogram study conducted in Norway. Researchers followed more than 200,000 women (age 50 to 64) as part of a national breast-screening program for six years. About half of the women received three mammograms during that time. The other half of the women got a single "screening mammogram" at the end of the six-year period.

    Incredibly, researchers found that breast cancer rates were 22 percent higher among the women given regular mammograms! Did the extra mammograms actually increase the rate of breast cancer? Based on my experience in pathology, that's highly possible.

    But the Norwegian scientists seemed to think something else was at play here. They believe the second group of women actually did get cancer just as often. It's just that some of their cancers may have "spontaneously regressed."

    What does that mean?

    Well, the scientists believe the women who got just one mammogram developed just as many tumors. But their tumors went undiagnosed and, therefore, untreated. And given time, some of them disappeared. In other words, the body healed itself!

    Plus, in case you're wondering, this wasn't some quack-job study. It got published in the Journal of the American Medical Association..

    Chances are, your doctor saw it. But how could he or she dare question the mantra preached for years about annual mammograms? Even the best internists, gynecologists, and family physicians are subject to an incredible, long-term propaganda blitz by the American Cancer Society telling us these barbaric tests save lives.

    Open a debate, ask your doctor
    Now, I'm not saying that women shouldn't get tested for breast cancer. But there's a far better test out there. It's called a thermogram. According to some data I've seen, this highly accurate test can detect cancerous cells up to 10 years before a mammogram. Plus, there's no radiation involved and it doesn't cause trauma to the breast. Unfortunately, it's not widely available yet. But with a little luck, we'll see mammograms go by the wayside as more and more of us learn about their shortcomings. And we'll see an increased demand for better testing.

    In the meantime, if you want to learn more about thermograms and where to get one, look back at 12-11-08's Guide to Good Health article called Beware of mammograms. Take a look at the facts for yourself. Weigh your options. And talk to your doctor.

2 Item(s)