The Dark side of Scans - What your doctors don't tell you!!


CT Scans & other intrusive diagnostic tool, causes cancer & ineffective detection

High tech diagnostic tools are not more useful than taking a patient's medical history, examination, note of present symptoms. For instance, studies show that women who regularly examine their breasts, detect unusual lumps earlier. Some report show an increase of cancer risks by 50% following routine mammograms over a period of six years. There is no doubt that mammograms are to be avoided. Breast tissue is very sensitive to radiation, considering that radiation does cause cell mutation, is it worth the risk? see this thought provoking article: http://tinyurl.com/y9eko3b

Moving on, the article below discusses FDA corruption, suppression of information, self interest, and mentions the dangers of colonscopy.

In a nutshell, an efficient MD should be a good diagnostician without resorting to harmful high tech diagnostics tools unless - there is justifiable cause.


See the article below:

From Medscape Medical News

Experts Debate Extent of FDA Reform in Wake of Whistleblower Testimony

Robert Lowes

April 5, 2010 — Did a former consulting scientist at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lose his position — as he contends — because he blew the whistle about the risk for radiation exposure from computed tomography (CT) scanners used in colon cancer screenings?

Or is the FDA right when it claims that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found no criminal wrongdoing after investigating the charges of Julian Nicholas, MD, who testified March 30 at an agency hearing on preventing unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging?

Although all the facts surrounding the case of Dr. Nicholas have yet to be sorted out, some FDA watchers say one thing is clear — the agency is still recovering from the antiregulatory, probusiness climate of the George W. Bush administration in which public health took a back seat.

"The new leadership of the FDA inherited a mess," said Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonpartisan National Research Center for Women and Families, which specializes in health issues. "You have a change of leadership at the top, but the vast majority of the people in the FDA at the office or center level are exactly the same [as before]."

"People got promoted during the 8 years of the Bush administration for reasons that had to do with ideology. They may be very capable and smart, but they also have a proindustry point of view, not a public-health point of view."

Like Dr. Zuckerman, Steven Nissen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, and a long-time FDA critic, thinks that the Nicholas case is a sign of a hangover from the Bush administration.

...............Dr. Nicholas said that his superiors in the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health pressured him to change his scientific opinion when he objected to letting a manufacturer — reportedly General Electric — market a CT scanner for "virtual colonoscopies." Nicholas said he warned FDA managers last year that such scans could significantly increase a patient's risk for cancer. His whistleblowing, he said, led the FDA not to renew his contract when it expired last October. http://tinyurl.com/yeyoheg