Each year that today's scanners are used, 14,500 deaths could result, researchers say. When healthy people are exposed to the radiation, the imaging may create more problems than it solves.latimes.com
December 15, 2009
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Widespread overuse of CT scans and variations in radiation doses caused by different machines -- operated by technicians following an array of procedures -- are subjecting patients to high radiation doses that will ultimately lead to tens of thousands of new cancer cases and deaths, researchers reported today.
Several recent studies have suggested that patients have been unnecessarily exposed to radiation from CTs or have received excessive amounts, but two new studies published Tuesday in the Archives of Internal Medicine are the first to quantify the extent of exposure and the related risks.
DMG said...
You should really learn to read and comprehend what you read. "could result" does not equal "cause...cancer deaths each year"
Moron.
Denmark Vesey said ...
Plantation MD,
did you know that the term"could result in cancer" is derived from the Latin root: "don't fuck with it Jigaboo"?
Yes. Anything that submits your entire body to RADIATION not only "could" cause cancer... but "does" cause cancer. Everyday.
You don't have to go to medical school to understand that.
Yet Dr. Rochester here ... stilll has faith in ol' Plantation Massa MD. "Yus suh! Yo' medicine good suh! You could do nooooo wrong boss! Just a lil raydayayshun. Big deal!? Dey can get raydayayshun frum a micwo wave uhvun. What dey gwanna do?! Tek nuts n burrys?! Fuuuuug Denawk Vushey! Who iz he tuh question you?! Tawkin 'bout he fwum ROYALTY! Can you bulieve dat suh! Duh nurrrrve! Aint rught fo no bwak man tuh be dat arrowgant!" Aint wight Suh! Aint wight!"
31 comments:
You should really learn to read and comprehend what you read.
"could result" does not equal "cause...cancer deaths each year"
Moron.
name calling = not cool.
good morning doc..
tgn
Not name calling just stating a fact. Perhaps your keystrokes might be better spent defending truth instead of defending your man.
By the way, MOTI, I'll bet you do an excellent Stepin Fetchin impression. Is that your mother tongue?
See. Why you gotta be so nasty with the sista? She was looking out for both of us.
Plantation MD is Black Illiterate.
Negro ... You Stepin Prescribe it.
Mr. Could Cause Cancer,
No wonder so many Plantation Medicine patients are dropping dead.
Nasty? Please...I told her to defend truth and not your silly ass. Quit evading the topic.
Doc,
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you a cheerleader for the swine flu vaccine because swine flu could cause complications and death and not because could cause = number of deaths from swine flu.
If could cause is a good enough standard to justify injecting yourself with known toxins, why isn't it a good enough standard by which to judge whether a CT scan is useful?
I will correct you. I don't "cheer" for anyone or anything. H1N1 HAD a 16.7% mortality in the southern hemisphere, a 15 fold increase in ICU admissions from the year previous, and 2.6 cases per million requiring extracorporeal support. H1N1 does kill folks, and has killed folks, and will continue to kill folks.
Your man is placing words where they were never MEANT to be. He states that IT DOES, not that IT HAS POTENTIAL. There's no evidence that CT scans CAUSE 14,500 cancer deaths per year, the article suggests that missuse or overuse could lead to higher incidence of cancer.
II, you know better than that. Quit playing human shield for your man.
I'm not playing human shield for anyone. Everyone here is capable of reading the title and comparing it to the text of the LA Times Article.
Indeed, the article itself says "Taking into account the cancer mortality rate from radiation exposure, plus the age of the population undergoing such scans, the researchers estimated that the cases would result in 14,500 deaths per year."
If you are upset with the conclusions being drawn from the research, contact the L.A. Times.
II,
I read the articles...the two actual article in Archives of Internal Medicine.
Your man is trying to indict (as he tries everyday...at least he's consistent) modern medicine. His problem is he doesn't know what he's talking about...again. He takes a title from a news article about two papers written in peer reviewed journals and comes up with a conclusion NOT made in the original. It's a nice potential debate. I actually believe some physicians use CT scans too much and sometimes inappropriately. I always try to limit unnecessary exposure to radiation. But "too much or inappropriate" does not equal "any" exposure. Which is what our fearmongering idiot-host is trying to suggest.
You have a law background, I know your critical reading skills are better than that.
Doc,
WTF took you so long to make your point?
11 comments in to finally say what you wanted to say - that THE LA TIMES article came up with a conclusion not in the original studies.
DV posted the LA Times story. If you don't like the conclusions, CALL THE LA TIMES. And use this as a wonderful example of sensationalist media and why the readers of this blog should not trust the LA Times and the like to report on modern medicine.
Instead of degrading the discourse just to yell moron in a crowded room, offer something.
From the abstract Projected Cancer Risk from CT Scans Performed in the US in 2007
"Results: Overall, we estimated that approximately 29 000
(95% UL, 15 000-45 000) future cancers COULD BE RELATED
to CT scans performed in the US in 2007"
From our hosts title:
"The Insane Quakery of Plantation Medicine Continues-CT Scans CAUSE 14,500 CANCER DEATHS each year (More deaths than H1N1)-Avoid Plantation MDs"
Now, anyone who is informed knows that incidence of cancer does not equal yearly cancer deaths. Do you see how the host is attempting to mislead the masses who might not have the tools to understand the fine details?
What took me so long? Ummm...what took YOU so long? My first post is quite clear.
As far as morons...I call them as I see them. Moron is appropriate.
From the Greek moros foolish, stupid. As in MOTI has the tools to come to the correct conclusion, but due to his foolish attempts to take swipes at modern medicine, still arrives at incorrect conclusions.
DMG.
First of all.
You are "the masses".
Your entire argument is that "Our host" has come to a conclusion" not arrived at by your Plantation Medicine Priesthood.
Your host makes no pretense to come to their conclusions.
Your host is not a parrot.
I don't need a bunch of idiots who make their living off of CT Scans & CT Scan Research & Checking For Cancer & Treating Cancer & Selling Drugs To Treat Cancer & Selling Drugs To Treat The Cancer Caused By The Drugs & Catering to the Sick Industry in general to spoon feed me the obvious.
Radiation Kills.
CT Scans expose people to radiation.
Much of Plantation Medicine Kills.
According to The Plantation Medicine Priesthood ... Doctors routinely kill over 200,000 people a year.
No matter how you twist the data Doc ... the fake Swine Flu epidemic you are STILL defending (getting embarrassing) poses less of a real threat than the damn doctors themselves.
Need a Vaccine for Plantation Medicine.
You know, I'm not really in the mood for your forked tongue bullshit today.
I made my case, you didn't make yours.
You are again caught trying to sneak your dirty pee-stained sheets and draws into the laundry before mom and dad wake up.
You've been caught lying. Again. Give it a rest.
"Radiation Kills"- MOTI
I guess you aren't the cat touting sunshine.
DV, ionizing radiation kills. DMG has a point, the SUN is one big nuclear reactor to which we are exposed on a daily basis.
Any diagnostic tool that subjects a person to ionizing radiation should obviously be limited in use. This is why when you get an xray, you have to have shielding on the body parts that aren't being x rayed.
dmg,
sir, i am not defending "my man", he's here at home where is is supposed to be and does not require my defense...neither does dv.
i am simply hoping we can have an intelligent exchange of ideas without namecalling.
guess i was wrong....
tgn
TGN,
When has our host, or his backers EVER requested an "intelligent" exchange of ideas? Please point me to the thread. He's all sensationalism. He's interested in the surface, and has no use for deeper understanding of topics. He scurries away when confronted, breaks out in rhymes or waits to be shielded by his trusty yes-men. What is the point of attempting intelligent debate with him?
"Yes. Anything that submits your entire body to RADIATION not only "could" cause cancer... but "does" cause cancer. Everyday.
You don't have to go to medical school to understand that."-MOTI
"...(something, something, something) Denmark Vesey healing black people with sunshine"-MOTI
So, MOTI, how are you going to reconcile these two quotes of yours when Mahndisa rightfully pointed out that the Sun is one great big nuclear reactor?
I'll let you sleep on this one...
"He's interested in the surface, and has no use for deeper understanding of topics." DMG
Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?
You're not willing to understand any topic other than plantation medicine. When I brought up the topic of herbs, you wouldn't give them the least bit of consideration, meanwhile people are (and have been for thousands of years) constantly testifying about the healing power of herbs.
I brought up my home birth, all you could say is, "What if this had happened, what if that had happened." Nothing happened. It was perfect.
You are so intertwined in plantation medicine that you have become it. When one speaks against it, you defend it as if one were talking about you.
Your defense of plantation medicine is automatic. You see something against it and you instantly begin firing med school mandated defenses without even considering the situation.
Take off the blinders. People healed themselves way before plantation medicine scientists performed experiments in a lab.
Drop the ego. People don't have to come through you to remedy their ills. (In fact, they ought not).
"Anything that submits your entire body to SUNSHINE not only 'could' cause cancer... but 'does' cause cancer. Everyday."
Ahh... the worm turns.
Has DV come with a melanin theory yet?
The post can be corrected with making the simple vocabulary change from radiation to Ionizing Radiation. We get the gist of what he is saying and there is something to it.
DMG is attacking DV's lack of specificity about radiation, but the deeper message is that medical diagnostics are being performed that subject patients to unnecessary ionizing radiation, which has absolutely NO HEALTH BENEFIT and causes cells to transform and or degrade.
As a kid, I got so many chest x rays due to asthma and pneumonia that I wouldn't be surprised if that came back to haunt me one day...God forbid.
Mahndisa,
I don't think MOTI knows the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing forms of radiation.
We also know that everything, from eating an apple to getting a CT scan comes with some risk. As I've already stated, I'm not in favor of medically unnecessary diagnostics.
Please clarify something for me.
You stated: "medical diagnostics are being performed that subject patients to unnecessary ionizing radiation, which has absolutely NO HEALTH BENEFIT and causes cells to transform and or degrade"
Are you talking about all diagnositcs or only those that are not medically indicated?
Thanks.
I will humor you this once, but you are simply nitpicking. The point is that ionizing radiation isn't good. Sure x rays can be used as a diagnostic tool as can CT scans, but even using them in a diagnostic (medically indicated) fashion can cause harm.
I once came across a guy who had Non Hodgkins lymphoma as a young man. He got radiation treatment but during that time his mediastinum was irradiated. It took 30 years, but when he was close to sixty, he was in congestive heart failure and ended up receiving a heart transplant.
Any fool knows that ionizing radiation acts to transform human cells whether or not the radiation is medically indicated or not.
BTW, his heart transplant surgeon indicated that the reason for the transplant was a direct consequence of his irradiated mediastinum; in other words there is causation.
Mahndisa,
I'm not nitpicking. I was simply really just asking for a clarification, as you were clarifying my post. I wanted to make sure you got what I was saying. But this is simply risk benefit.
Man gets in car accident, doesn't recall bumping head...at present he feels fine, nothing but a slight cut and bruise on the right side of his scalp. Could have let him go home...CT Head showed a massive epidural hematoma. Without clinical suspicion, he might have been sent home. The risk of a possible brain tumor 60 years later vs. a big brain bleed now, is worth the risk.
Having said that so-called Executive Physicals or other unnecessary exams either aren't supported by evidence, or carry a high risk to benefit ratio.
Would I recommend a CT Abdomen for a 10 year old boy who complained of acute onset abdominal pain that migrated to the right lower quadrant accompanied by fever, nausea, vomiting, acute anorexia and had rebound tenderness at McBurney's point? No, because no matter what the CT findings are I'm obligated to explore this kids abdomen. I'd take him to the OR for an appendectomy. NOT NEEDED TO MAKE THE DIAGNOSIS in this situation (although it might be helpful, and some lawyer may give me grief asking why I didn't get one).
Nervous wealthy so-called "VIP" business executive comes in with non-specific belly pain after eating bad Chinese food demanding a CT scan doesn't get one from me...because it's not indicated. If he develops signs of obstruction, sepsis, or perforation depending on the severity, maybe he'll get one. This is how it works. Blanket statements aren't helpful and only confuses the population.
Post a Comment