Re: Scan/Radiation

[Guest guest]

I do not have a link to this article so I am printing it here. This is nothing

new to most list members nor is it a total condemnation of the use of CT-Scans.

It is simply telling us the facts so we can make an intelligent decision rather

than just be herded into compliance because Doctor White Coat tells us to do

something.

Even on this list people write, " do what you doctor tells you " and I respond to

that, 'and possibly pay the price', and I don't mean with money.

The article suggests we ask about 'other' diagnostic efforts. Imagine if the

numbers are 100% accurate? 442 Chest X-rays? Is there anyone that would get

442 Mammograms? What happens when children under 10 have a few CT-Scans?

What's the percentage of cancers they will face?

However, this information will die a quick death because Doctor White-Coat has

more influence on the minds of patients than an article. It will only be the

strong-willed that resist and seek other methods. There is nothing anyone

can defend regarding the excessive use or the unnecessary use of CT-Scans. The

article speaks to excessive and unnecessary.

Fifty or more years ago I read the following written by the Naturopath Herbert

M. Shelton: " why would anyone expose already sick and damaged organs to X-Rays

that provide for additional damage " ? Here we are fifty or more years later and

and those responsible for this danger are still debating it.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

I recently heard about something called a " color doppler sonogram " which is

supposed to be much less damaging to the patient and although not quite as exact

as a CT scan, certainly clear enough to determine tumor size and density. Has

anyone heard of this or had any experience with it?

thanks

Nili

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe C

I do not have a link to this article so I am printing it here. This is nothing

new to most list members nor is it a total condemnation of the use of CT-Scans.

It is simply telling us the facts so we can make an intelligent decision rather

than just be herded into compliance because Doctor White Coat tells us to do

something.

Even on this list people write, " do what you doctor tells you " and I respond

to that, 'and possibly pay the price', and I don't mean with money.

The article suggests we ask about 'other' diagnostic efforts. Imagine if the

numbers are 100% accurate? 442 Chest X-rays? Is there anyone that would get 442

Mammograms? What happens when children under 10 have a few CT-Scans?

What's the percentage of cancers they will face?

However, this information will die a quick death because Doctor White-Coat has

more influence on the minds of patients than an article. It will only be the

strong-willed that resist and seek other methods. There is nothing anyone can

defend regarding the excessive use or the unnecessary use of CT-Scans. The

article speaks to excessive and unnecessary.

Fifty or more years ago I read the following written by the Naturopath Herbert

M. Shelton: " why would anyone expose already sick and damaged organs to X-Rays

that provide for additional damage " ? Here we are fifty or more years later and

and those responsible for this danger are still debating it.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Yes, we have used colored doppler. There are a few who are reportedly to be

good at this. Here are their names and state where they practice. Just google

for more information. Dr. Bard of NYC only does doppler and alternative healing.

He does not believe in biopsy. The only problem he didn't talk much...which is

difficult.

Now here are the others: Dr Lee in Rochester MI. Dr Bahn in Ventura CA. Dr

Chin in Los Angeles, Dr Sconti in NYC. and the Dattoli Cancer Center in Sarosata

Fla. The list is from a website posted by a johnt.

Anyhow, this makes me laugh. Our MD insisted hubby see best urologist in

Austin...he wanted to biopsy then, we refused. Our MD was furious and fired us.

Now, we had the last laugh his best MD is practising alternative in Mexico when

he wants to do HIFU on a patient. HAHAHAHA>

Hope this helps you.

>

>

> I recently heard about something called a " color doppler sonogram " which is

supposed to be much less damaging to the patient and although not quite as exact

as a CT scan, certainly clear enough to determine tumor size and density. Has

anyone heard of this or had any experience with it?

> thanks

> Nili

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Joe C

>

>

> I do not have a link to this article so I am printing it here. This is

nothing new to most list members nor is it a total condemnation of the use of

CT-Scans. It is simply telling us the facts so we can make an intelligent

decision rather than just be herded into compliance because Doctor White Coat

tells us to do something.

>

> Even on this list people write, " do what you doctor tells you " and I respond

to that, 'and possibly pay the price', and I don't mean with money.

>

> The article suggests we ask about 'other' diagnostic efforts. Imagine if the

numbers are 100% accurate? 442 Chest X-rays? Is there anyone that would get 442

Mammograms? What happens when children under 10 have a few CT-Scans?

> What's the percentage of cancers they will face?

>

> However, this information will die a quick death because Doctor White-Coat

has more influence on the minds of patients than an article. It will only be the

strong-willed that resist and seek other methods. There is nothing anyone can

defend regarding the excessive use or the unnecessary use of CT-Scans. The

article speaks to excessive and unnecessary.

>

> Fifty or more years ago I read the following written by the Naturopath

Herbert M. Shelton: " why would anyone expose already sick and damaged organs to

X-Rays that provide for additional damage " ? Here we are fifty or more years

later and and those responsible for this danger are still debating it.

>

> Joe C.

>

>