CT scans overuse causes cancers: report

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Good day maybe maybe not!
Kind regards as well. Always a pleasure.
Did you read the last sentence in that post?
Maybe maybe not

G'day rusethorcain

I did read your last sentence

However I don't think it's fair for everybody to keep bashing the medical industry as hard as they do.

I've worked in it all my life.....

It has it's "problem people", just like any other industry.

However in the main, it's basically full of very decent, extremely hard working people.

I wish more people on here could just try to see a positive side to it, even if just a little.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


The medical profession here in the US burned midwives and herbalists as witches to make way for the practice of their craft.

I do believe, trust, respect and even revere a good doctor.
but I think some initial precept for the entire field is off track.

reply to post by spearhead


G'day spearhead

Thank you for your kind & positive words

On the one hand, it is probable that lower back CT's are being over utilised, as per your article & as per my earlier comments.

On the other hand, it's such a good way to see what's going on that it's sort of inevitable.

The gold standard for discerning intervertebral disc lesions is definitely MR. However, there is some reluctance to use that because of the manner in which the Oz gov limits its use by forcing patients to make out of pocket payments for MR exams.

It sounds very much like in your instance, you should have been imaged by MR much earlier in your procedures.

Here are some thoughts & ideas for your consideration & possible discussion with your Dr & physio, if you haven't already discussed these things.....

The coccyx thing can be very troublesome....it can become chronically painful because it sometimes doesn't heal well. There's often very little you can do about it.

A lack of exercise will decrease the bone density of your spine, which will make things worse. You need to get to a point where you can do resistance work (i.e. weight work), ideally when you are standing. If you can do standing resistance work, you'll find it is the fastest way to increase the bone density of your spine & your long bones. The resistance work will also increase your muscle density & strength, which will support your spine & decrease damage. You must also complement this activity with a really good diet, including a high quality protein supplement......very important IMHO.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

but I think some initial precept for the entire field is off track.

G'day rusethorcain

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

If you can clarify, I will be pleased to respond.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

this is interesting stuff, I have to have MRI scans regulaly for my Brain Tumour. They try to limit the scans to one a year, however if i feel my symptoms return I can get a scan within the week. I have had quite a few over the 8 years living with brain tumors, I certainly wouldnt be alive today as the images from the MRI are used in the planning and performing of removing the tumors Ive had. Next one on the 1st April. At first they can be a little scary, noisy things, after a few years and maybe a joint I tend to sleep through my scans now

[edit on 15-3-2010 by woodwardjnr]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


G'day woodwardjnr

Geez.....that sounds really, really tough.....

Just in case you're interested, here's a thread I started regarding a very new cancer technology.

I offer it because I suspect you probably have a keen interest in any new developments in this area.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you have specific questions subsequent to reading the thread, let mw know.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thank you for the further information, maybe maybe not.

When seen in context to other life risks like driving just 23 miles or smoking 7 ciggies, well context is very important.

In your work, do you supply the patients with stats and info on any risks, or is it seen as too small to worry about. I know as well you guys are busy so Maybe its a target time thing within the UK NHS as to why these things are not discussed.

It has got me to thinking to about the risks of the new airport scanners, do you have any idea or info on the exposure to those who fly or travel regularly, or is the dosage soo small as to not warrant any risk at all?

Thanks.

Kind Regards,

Elf.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Hello and what good advice you have so I will need to pay closer attention to your threads and posts.

After posting and then retiring I had the fainest consideration this declaration might make me seem mad.

I have medical papers that clearly state, I am not. Maybe maybe not!

Anyway...There are many doctors and nurses in fact I will have to say the great majority of them humanitarian, altruists whose skill and dedication I greatly admire.

But I think the AMA here in the US (I don't know about other countries) had a rather nefarious start.

They joined with the church and virtually eliminated the competition. Then they hung a sign outside their door which included the DNA helix symbol with the two snakes. Demanded specific and costly education and joining the AMA which eliminated large numbers of traditional healers and all the midwives.

Their campaign against self healers was so effective (they burned them at the stake) this harsh and unpredictable treatment made people afraid of seeing them or even delving into the possibility of healing themselves.

Now I think there is conscious-free and scruple-free cabal that operates large corporate insurance and pharmaceutical interests.

And they have clear wide reaching involvement in disease research and the pharmaceutical industry and it is a network designed to keep us unwell and profits rolling in using the medical profession as unwitting dispensaries.

Who ever (some republican contingency - you can bank on it)decided it was a good idea to allow the advertising of drugs on television (after just removing ads for cigarette and alcohol because they were considered harmful)... This is a big "player" in this whole viscous cycle and scheme.

People should not go to their doctor and ask for a drug. People should go to their doctor with their complaints and allow the doctor to decide.

I don't think this was a step in the wrong direction. I think it was an intentional an concerted effort to...

1. Use the FDA to accept unheard of and untested food stuff whether or not they cause long term injury because we will focus on medical cures for said injury.

2. Get more people running to their doctors to "buy" these drugs we are making by subliminally and directly suggesting they have these ailments.
You know and I know...we can manipulate doctors to get almost anything out of them by faking the symptoms we see suggested on TV. Doctors seldom want to fight with their patients.

3. Abandon the idea of doctor as educator speed people through the medical process and take away their time with their doctor. Started with ending house calls and the door to door doctor.

Suddenly a patient doctor relationship, which existed mutually beneficially for centuries...
..has widened it's scope and prices to reflect the inclusion of a whole array of vested interests and people we don't need. Widened to include our employers, include insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical boutique specialists, pharmaceutics pushers (like pharm. salesmen and television advertisements -we pay their salaries and for those ads too) and I have to think even some complicity by an overworked easily persuaded... FDA.

And I don't think this was any accident.
I think it began with those 2 snakes.
But then that is why I joined a conspiracy website.

Feel free to disagree!

Good day kind regards and excellent health to you, Maybe maybe not...clearly a good man and a credit to your field.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

G'day MischeviousElf

In your work, do you supply the patients with stats and info on any risks, or is it seen as too small to worry about. I know as well you guys are busy so Maybe its a target time thing within the UK NHS as to why these things are not discussed.

We supply the equipment & the training. As part of that we ensure the Drs & technicians are educated on all of the aspects of risk. Our OEM partners also provide a great deal of easily accessed & clearly explained info on their websites. We also link to those areas from our website.

It has got me to thinking to about the risks of the new airport scanners, do you have any idea or info on the exposure to those who fly or travel regularly, or is the dosage soo small as to not warrant any risk at all?

I posted extensively about that in this thread (mostly pages 3 & 4):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't believe those scanners are a health risk.

Kind Regards,
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


It isn't doctors in any way shape or form I am discouraged with and mistrust, no matter what you 'd like to read into my post, it is the insurance companies, the money grubbing middlemen, we do not need between a patient and their physician...which I hate.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

It isn't doctors in any way shape or form I am discouraged with and mistrust, no matter what you 'd like to read into my post, it is the insurance companies, the money grubbing middlemen, we do not need between a patient and their physician...which I hate.

G'day rusethorcain

OK.....the insurance Co's......

Now I get it!

Sorry if I have been a bit "thick" about that.

Well yes, I agree with you.....that is a big problem.

Their influence on clinical decision making must be watched extremely closely.

Sorry again.....I wish I'd understood your point sooner.

Thanks for persisting with me!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not