Killer CT SCANS

[Rinse & rePeat]

“All of that exposure poses serious health threats. Researchers estimate that at least 2 percent of all future cancers in the U.S.—approximately 29,000 cases and 15,000 deaths per year—will stem from CT scans alone. Even some standard X-rays, which expose you to much smaller amounts of radiation, can pose risks if you undergo multiple ones.”

“Other studies show that doctors themselves often underestimate the dangers CT scans pose. Moreover, some doctors may actually have a financial incentive to order the tests.”

Dangers of CT Scans and X-Rays - Consumer Reports

A Consumer Reports' investigations finds that one third of CT scans ordered by doctors in the U.S. serve little if any medical purpose, and growing research shows all that unnecessary exposure to radiation can harm patients by causing cancer.

www.consumerreports.org

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“For an MRI, the company would charge doctors $375. It pegged the average reimbursement in the region at $706.31.

After deducting the cost of having the scan interpreted, the paperwork said, the doctors would net $234.77 from each MRI. It showed that a group practice could clear $122,078 a year if it referred two patients a day for scans, or $610,390 annually if it referred 10 a day. For a less-common kind of screening known as PET scans, profits would be higher: $525,200 a year to the doctors if they made two daily referrals, or $2.6 million annually for 10 a day.

Arrangements like this are increasingly common, say some doctors, industry officials and health-care lawyers. But few doctors acknowledge taking part in them, and the scanning centers that offer them typically are reluctant to identify referring doctors.“

MRI and CT Centers Offer Doctors Way to Profit on Scans - WSJ

Physicians Pay a Flat Fee

www.wsj.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“Whole-body scans use a lot of radiation.

The scans use two kinds of technology:

CT (computed tomography) scan: Takes many X-ray pictures of the body.
PET (positron emission tomography) scan: Radioactive material is injected into the body and collects in areas with cancer.
These scans use large amounts of radiation. This can increase your risk of cancer. If you have more tests, your risk increases.

Also, there are no federal radiation limits for CT scans (unlike other tests, such as mammograms). Therefore, it’s hard to be sure how much radiation you’re getting.”

Whole-Body Scans to Screen for Cancer | Choosing Wisely

They don’t help find cancer—and may do more harm than good.

www.choosingwisely.org

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“In conclusion, they say their findings support an association between acute high dose and (to a lesser extent) chronic low dose radiation exposure and most types of cardiovascular disease and suggest that "radiation detriment might have been significantly underestimated, implying that radiation protection and optimization at low doses should be rethought."”

Low-dose radiation linked to increased lifetime risk of heart disease

Exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation is associated with a modestly increased excess risk of heart disease, finds an analysis of the latest evidence published by The BMJ today.

medicalxpress.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“Radiation and oxygen deprivation also lead to increased tissue fibrosis.” -Ray Peat

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“Radiation and vegetable oils can cause "acquired immunodeficiency." Unsaturated oils, especially polyunsaturates, weaken the immune system's function in ways that are similar to the damage caused by radiation, hormone imbalance, cancer, aging, or viral infections.” -Ray Peat

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

“Free radical stress from exposure to radiation, trans fats, cigarettes, insecticides, pesticides, and other harmful elements continually deplete your body of electrons, and the earth is a good source of free radical-busting electrons.

These electrons have antioxidant effects that help fight oxidative stress, which is associated with inflammation and diseases.

Being out in nature is a great way to start your morning as well as end your evening. So, take off your shoes and be with nature.“

8 Health Benefits of Walking Barefoot on Grass - eMediHealth

Learn about the health benefits of walking barefoot on grass, associated risks, and the right way to do it.

www.emedihealth.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

How bad is a one-time xray of the entire spine?

Question is in the title. There are a lot of threads on the damaging effects of xrays, but how bad is it really if it happens once and the rest of your lifestyle is good? Talking about the entire spine here

raypeatforum.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

View: https://youtu.be/U0NSV6Mqlgw

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

View: https://youtu.be/6zASL2i5brM

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Radiation Damage Information and Remedies

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/02/doctors-zapping-the-heart-with-radiation-in-bid-to-cure-a-common-cause-of-cardiac-arrest

raypeatforum.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Prenatal ultrasound much worse than X-rays

Essentially every expectant mother in developed countries undergoes these procedures without thinking anything of it. Just the name ultrasound makes one think of whales singing in the pristine sea. Turns out it's a form of non-ionizing radiation at a specific frequency the wave pressures of...

raypeatforum.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

This was posted today by Peatress. I am going to listen to it now….

https://www.toxinless.com/kmud-090801-you-are-what-you-eat.mp3

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

France halts iPhone 12 sales over radiation levels - BBC News

Apple has been told it must recall every iPhone 12 sold in the country if it cannot fix the problem.

www.bbc.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

This was posted by @haidut elsewhere…

“I have had only two sets of dental X-rays in my life and both times I was wearing a lead vest which had a very high collar completely covering my neck. I specifically asked about it and they were very well aware why it was needed. Given that the woman in your CT procedure also knew about it, I suspect they simply F-ed up and did not want to go through the trouble of finding one or simply did not have one on the premises. Unless it is a very special kind of neck CT scan, the wearing of thyroid protective vest is pretty much common procedure these days and most doctors know about it. So, I suggest you call back and ask for an explanation. In some states it is even against the law to do such a CT scan without informing the patient about the dangers of the CT to the thyroid and giving the option of wearing a protective vest or opting out of the CT scan altogether.”

Just Had My CT Scan

For my teeth. Results are due in a week. I stood beneath a machine. A cubic plastic thing rotated around my head while emitting some kind of beep. I was given a kind of protective dress for my torso. My neck was naked. I asked about it. The woman who was performing the test on me replied: "For...

raypeatforum.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

This is terrible, again proving that “preventative care” can be the cause….

“Ever since physicians started regularly ordering CT (computed tomography) scans four decades ago, researchers have worried that the medical imaging procedure could increase a patient's risk of developing cancer. CT scanners bombard the human body with x-ray beams, which can damage DNA and create mutations that spur cells to grow into tumors.

Doctors have always assumed, however, that the benefits outweigh the risks. The x-rays, which rotate around the head, chest or another body part, help to create a three-dimensional image that is much more detailed than pictures from a standard x-ray machine. But a single CT scan subjects the human body to between 150 and 1,100 times the radiation of a conventional x-ray, or around a year's worth of exposure to radiation from both natural and artificial sources in the environment.

A handful of studies published in the past decade have rekindled concerns. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute estimate that 29,000 future cancer cases could be attributed to the 72 million CT scans performed in the country in 2007. That increase is equivalent to about 2 percent of the total 1.7 million cancers diagnosed nationwide every year. A 2009 study of medical centers in the San Francisco Bay Area also calculated an elevated risk: one extra case of cancer for every 400 to 2,000 routine chest CT exams.”

How Much Do CT Scans Increase the Risk of Cancer?

Researchers reevaluate the safety of radiation used in medical imaging

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

This was posted by @marcuswhybrow elsewhere…

“John Gorman, who in the 1950s was the US Government’s leading propagandists for the safety of ionizing radiation, did a large study Gofman 1999 is a massive dose-response study which began extensive circulation for peer-review among scientists in epidemiology, cancer etiology, ihd etiology, and health physics, immediately after its publication in november 1999. The study’s two principal conclusions are 1) medical radiation, introduced into medicine in 1896, became and remains a necessary causal co-actor in over half of the fatal cases of cancer in the usa, and 2) became and remains a necessary causal co-actor also in over half of the fatal cases of ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease) in the usa. From these conclusions plus the fact that x-ray harm is approximately proportional to accumulated x-ray dose, it follows that a very great deal of future cancer and ischemic heart disease (ihd) could be prevented by reducing the dose-levels customarily administered during x-ray imaging procedures, especially ct and fluoroscopy. indeed, it is very often feasible to get good images with half (or less) of the customary dose. doing so could prevent about 250,000 premature deaths every year in the usa, by our estimate. The conclusions above are obviously so important for human health that they demand thoughtful, independent scrutiny, i.e., peer-review. in which he showed that medical radiation contributes to the majority of cancer and heart disease in the US. Several factors (including estrogen, unsaturated fats, and toxic metals) synergize with the carcinogenic effects of radiation, so besides avoiding medical radiation, it’s good to reduce the polyunsaturated fats in the diet, to reduce toxic chemicals and other stressors, and to eat a protective diet, emphasizing calcium, magnesium, the oily vitamins, and moderate amounts of the essential nutrients.“

https://raypeat.rodeo/when-western-medicine-isn't-working/

When Western Medicine Isn't Working

This one is a written interview that I've added to Ray Peat Rodeo https://raypeat.rodeo/when-western-medicine-isn't-working

raypeatforum.com

 

[Ras]

This was posted by @marcuswhybrow elsewhere…

"...indeed, it is very often feasible to get good images with half (or less) of the customary dose...“

https://raypeat.rodeo/when-western-medicine-isn't-working/

When Western Medicine Isn't Working

This one is a written interview that I've added to Ray Peat Rodeo https://raypeat.rodeo/when-western-medicine-isn't-working

raypeatforum.com

Speaking for my facility, this is incorrect. While ionizing CT examinations are over-performed, the doses administered in said exams are ALARA. When configuring the parameters in our CT protocols, we poll the appropriate Radiologists and work with our Radiation Safety Officer to get the doses as low as the Radiologists will accept, in consideration of the subsequent image quality. With so much of the patient population being overweight, doses can be lowered only so much before image quality suffers beyond the point of being diagnostic.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Speaking for my facility, this is incorrect. While ionizing CT examinations are over-performed, the doses administered in said exams are ALARA. When configuring the parameters in our CT protocols, we poll the appropriate Radiologists and work with our Radiation Safety Officer to get the doses as low as the Radiologists will accept, in consideration of the subsequent image quality. With so much of the patient population being overweight, doses can be lowered only so much before image quality suffers beyond the point of being diagnostic.

I am sure newer machines are less destructive, but the radiologist at the hospital my husband was at says the hospital is killing people with outdated machines.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

One of the primary risks of a full-body scan is radiation exposure. CT and PET scans both use radiation to create detailed images of your body’s internal structures. Your body is exposed to large amounts of radiation during CT or PET full-body scans. This exposure can increase your risk of cancer.

When a full-body scan is used to check the extent of an injury or to see how cancer is progressing, the benefit tends to outweigh the risk. Because the benefit of a full-body scan as a cancer detection tool is currently unproven, the FDA doesn’t recommend full-body scans for cancer detection.

Other risks of full-body scans include false positives that can lead to unnecessary testing and false negatives that can cause people to ignore their symptoms.“

A Full-Body Scan for Cancer: What are the Risks and Benefits?

A full-body scan for cancer is an imaging test that scans your whole body. Due to the risks, a full-body scans isn't recommended as a cancer screening test.

www.healthline.com