If you've read that the doctor X-rays were responsible for half the incidence of cancer in this country - what would your reaction be?
I suspect based largely on where they would be read. If there was a title in the National Enquirer, probably ignore. But if you saw him on the front page of The New York Times, you should pay more attention.
No matter where you read it, your reaction would be one of disbelief.
Why? As you probablyI believe that modern medicine is based on the science being tested?
They believe that if medical X-ray one of the leading causes of cancer, this would soon be discovered, and not let this happen? If so, you have no proof of that belief - or is it just the reflection of faith in the medical profession?
X-rays are a valuable medical tool since its discovery in 1895. But for over 70 years we knew that X-rays cause genetic mutations andCancer.
The belief that the doctor X-rays is a major cause of cancer on three fundamental assumptions:
First, the risk of low doses of radiation is only hypothetical. Secondly, for the management, the doctors and technicians of the minimum dose. Thirdly, that X-rays is not repeated in their cumulative effect.
Search and find overwhelming evidence that neither of these are true. But you need to know where to look, and you should not look at the raw dataBias.
The test is sometimes published in medical journals in general. But too often published only in obscure journals read only a few thousand specialists. And because of the threatening nature of the data to our current medical system, the results are rarely discussed in mainstream media.
So, for example, recently published an article entitled "Breast cancer mortality after diagnostic radiography."
It turned out the results of aStudy funded by the National Cancer Institute, that the correlation of mortality of breast cancer with the receipt of diagnostic X-rays for scoliosis [curvature of the spine] examined. These women, who had taken an average of 25 diagnostic X-rays, was 70% greater risk of dying from breast cancer than the general population.
One of the main conclusions of the paper was: "In accordance with the radiation as a causative factor in the risk of dying of breast cancer increased significantly with the number ofExposed to X-rays of the chest and with increasing cumulative dose of radiation to the breast. "
So much for acceptance, the number three. But it is likely that the doctor - or your oncologist or radiologist - has not seen the report because it was published in the back. Spine has a circulation of less than 8,000 worldwide, consisting mainly of specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
The FDA estimates that seven in 10 Americans have received at leastan X-ray last year. How many of you and your family have received? Those who have received in the course of your life? What was the dose? Did you know? Your doctors know?
The person who probably knows as much about the effects of radiation, as anyone in the world is John Gofman, MD, Ph.D., professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley and at the Faculty of the University of Studies of California Medical School in San Francisco (UCSF).
Dr.Gofman has published six books on the effects of ionizing radiation on health, the last that radiation from medical procedures in the development of cancer and ischemic heart disease. In this tome of 700 pages, Dr. Gofman provides study after another, playing on the medical X-rays not only an important role in the birth of 50% of cases of cancer - but also the birth of 60% of cases of coronary artery disease heart disease (CHD). The mechanism likely, said Dr. Gofman, the radiation is the induction of mutations inthe coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells.
Dr. Gofman is quick to point out that in the first place, he is not opposed to medical X-rays - only their use in unnecessarily high doses. And second, that X-rays are not even the only cause of these diseases, but are a necessary co-actor. This means that the doctor X-rays are not the only ones responsible for our epidemic of cancer and coronary heart disease but with other factors, together, canand not cause the development of these diseases. Reduce the amount of exposure to medical X-rays and the incidence of cancer and coronary heart disease is reduced proportionately.
Dr. Gofman shows, such as x-ray doses are slightly reduced on average by 50% from current levels. He points out, as simple and cost effective as frequent dose measurements. Appropriate training for technicians is essential. Radiology need to compensate for the age and size of the patient. And specialists need to be aware of howvery first exposure to their patients and be helpful when ordering only imaging required.
Physicians should be aware of imaging devices that do not involve ionizing radiation - such as magnetic resonance imaging for neurological and musculoskeletal conditions and thermal imaging for screening mammography - to recognize and be able to cancer years before a mammogram. When Dr. Gofman hypothesis is correct, so that these tentative steps to save more the rule than the exception would be at least 250,000Lives a year.
Although some radiologists, except Dr. Gofman has started working, did not contradict in any way. So why do these simple, life-saving measures are not embraced by the entire medical profession? Why is this story on the front page of every newspaper in America?
Two hundred and 50 million X-rays will be performed in the U.S. this year. At a conservative average cost of $ 50 X-ray is a sector with annual sales of $ 12.5 billion °Diagnostic X-ray imaging is a cornerstone of much of conventional medicine. Nothing that the public perception of the value and safety of X-rays must be known to weaken.
The radiologist, Dr. Gofman has criticized the work they have on the grounds that patients could be removed with a terror to all x-rays criticized when they could very well benefit from the procedure. This is a very serious problem of a patient's right to know. Dr. Gofman says, "We doubt that x-rayProfessionals would argue that the X-ray which an agent in all of medicine, where are your doctors and patients about the benefits only say, and should always be informed about the dose and risk. "
It 'a revolution in medicine today. And 'what is the growth of alternative medicine - a movement that embodies the absolute minimization of toxic medical modalities. This is not driven by the efforts of health workers, but from the marketDemands of increasingly informed patients and not to blindly accept unnecessary and unacceptable "risk-benefit" relationship. Dr. Gofman has information not only to protect the public, but X-rays to help the industry to clean house, through the patient's right to know policy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment