Just a little public service announcement regarding what they don’t usually tell you.
Beware the cancer risk of CT scans. Also read up on the raging debate sparked by a federally funded US task force of physicians who found that the benefits of regular mammography for women between 40 and 50 are outweighed by the risks.
I have always wondered why cancer is on the rise. Might not some of the cancer cases be due to tests/scans like these?
This from the Wall Street Journal:
The risk of cancer associated with popular CT scans appears to be greater than previously believed, according to two new studies published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The findings support caution against the overuse of CT scans and other medical technologies that use radiation. The studies also bolstered the rationale behind controversial new breast-cancer screening guidelines, which pushed back the recommended age for annual mammograms to 50 from 40. Mammograms also use radiation, but in smaller doses. Full article here.
| Please help to support this blog if you can. Read the commenting guidlelines for this blog. |
It’s very true that radiologists “never” disclose the hazards of radiation – be it by means of CT scans or any other modes of radiation-based clincal procedures. It’s especially more so with Asian-based clinicians. Our current so called quality procedures and patient charters never stress on the health-risk posed by these radiation procedures. Sad – how ignorant are our so well versed MOH officials are.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/asian-wildlife/christy-text/1
The following excerpt is revealing. —- Dr. John Gofman is a nuclear physicist – he holds a Ph.D in nuclear and physical chemistry – as well as a medical doctor. He is also one of the leading experts in the world in these issues and his conclusion is that a high percentage of cancers today are x-ray induced. The evidence presented in his book, “Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease”, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from ischemic heart disease today, are… Read more »
Anil, you are right about patients not being aware or informed of the risks. At least the radiologist handling the procedure should inform the patients. But when I did two CT scans, neither the radiologist nor the doctor who recommended the scans done advised me of the risks – they were more concerned that I agree to the scan. Not all CT scans are conclusive, nor is it able to diagnose the problem. Sometimes I do question the need to have one.
Life is about weighing risks. For example, it is far riskier to do an angiogram than a CT scan to determine if we have a blocked artery to the heart should other indications show that we may have a heart problem even though a chest CT scan exposes the patient to more than 100 times the radiation dose of a typical chest X-ray. If one or more of my parents or siblings have cancer, then the chance of me contracting one is much higher than an average Joe or Jane. Thus it make sense to nib the problem at the… Read more »
Yes, I take your point about weighing risks.
The thing is many people are not even aware of the risks, which are often not clearly spelt out for them.
Cancer survival rate is better if detected early is a myth and a lie propagated by big pharma who are only interested in more people going for dangerous screening. What are the facts ? It is true that mammograms do detect cancer at an earlier stage and when the cancer growth is smaller. The 5 year survival rate used by big pharma to convince us that things have improved with their dangerous drugs is actually misleading. Let us take 2 groups of people to illustrate my point. Half the group goes for regular mammogram and let’s assume that 30% of… Read more »
“why cancer is on the rise?”
Is it? Maybe other causes of death are being treated with greater success than cancer? We have to die of something – if we have access to healthcare, it’ll be the one they’re less able to treat. Is it rising as the one that finally takes us, or is it actually becoming more common? I hadn’t heard ‘on the rise’ before.
The credit for life expectancy increase had often been claimed by modern medicine. But this is not true. The actual life expectancy had not changed much over the centuries. How do we then account for the apparent increase in life expectancy ? That’s the beauty and deceptiveness of taking the mean. The following article is quite revealing.
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/expect.htm
What is important to note is that modern man with modern medicine suffers greatly from chronic ailments.