开云体育

"I have heard that one CT-Scan is equal to 100 Chest X-Rays. Would I
take 100 Chest X-Rays? Why would I inflict that on already diseased
organs? However that is me."

Joe, good advice, but I wonder about your numbers. The
research I have done tells me that one abdominal CT scan contains the
equivalent of 800 chest x-rays, and from that I calculate that a full-
body CT scan could contain as much radiation as 2400 or more x-rays.
People who receive CT scans are NEVER told by their doctor or by the
facility administering the CT scans, how much radiation they are
getting. It's an insane situation.

I read 100 x-rays but I'll take the figure of 1,600 or 2,400..................after 100, that's enough. Really now, why would we do that except for an initial determination.

Once you know what you have the idea is to start getting well, not playing 'Doctor, can you please burn me some more and perhaps make my cancer worse'.

Maybe, my cancer is related to the tons of X-rays I've had?????? That's me talking and maybe it applies to a lot of us????

Professionals will tell you the equipment today provides for far less in radiation, but not when they take 10-15 pictures it doesn't. It's cumulative you know.

Joe C.

In a message dated 4/30/05 6:32:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, aug20@...
writes:

no one appears to know for
sure how much radiation a CT Scan delivers.

how aobut PET scans? that's what all the followups are with my doc, since
thay are looking for active growth anywhere. the machine does a CAT AND a PET
simultaneously. And there is a radioactive injection too. Even the MRI has an
injection. And it comes in a motor home every Tuesday, is not stand alone
equipment.

wht do you think. is there a less radioactive type of PET?

I tried asking questions at the hospital already and got nothing but bland,
misinformed, reassurances that radioactivity at those levels is like a day at
the beach. I got NO specifics.

And I have gotten nowhere trying to find a thermography machine in a hospital
(I need insurance to pay).

So determining progress must be subjective? By how one feels?

I am also getting major strong armed to do radiation after I finish chemo
next month. I am refusing it. But their rationale is that my
diet/lifestyle/environemental changes, that even chemo, cant get at an area that has had four
surgical sites because teh blood vessels are damaged and the lymph channels razed.

So would that mean that the Budwig protocol would also miss the area where
the cancer cells mainly would have been spilled during surgery. Surgery is not
an exact science, the radiation is supposed to clean up the mess it leaves.

but, after four months, i am more concerned with messes that have left teh
area. in which case the budwig protocol makes sense.

right?

vanessa

Even though I had a good xsonogram pic of the tumor, the surgeon required a
mammogram to get an appointment. after the smash and radiate I got there, the
tumore exploded with growth. just in time for the biopsy. . . medical equipment
is making ilness much worse. I know Budwig is similar to the Hippocrates
Health iInstitute, the resource in my neighborhood, in thinkingtht synthetics are
a big stumbling block in our homes. So the hospital, just full of fumes, is
the LAST place on earth a person struggling with cancer should be, IMO.

When I turned down my staging scans I lost a great oncologist. He just
wouldn't work "blind"

It is great that we have communities like this to back up teh things we know
instincually and support each other in our quest for real health.

Joe, we can take some comfort in the fact that the body is a thoroughly
amazing machine, capable of repairing the damage done by x-rays to a
significant degree. But when a doctor who has no idea how much
radiation is being delivered in one CT scan overdoes it, the body's
repair system can become overwhelmed. That's the problem. And again,
there ought to be no disagreement between us as to how much radiation
is contained in a full body CT scan. That information ought to be
immediately available on the internet. The fact that it is not dismays
me. I have a call in to a radiologist at a local hospital, and I think
this week I may call a company or two that MAKES CT scanners and
question them. I might even telephone the FDA. I'm not stressing myself
over this. I just want to get to the bottom of what appears to be a
very strange situation---that being that no one appears to know for
sure how much radiation a CT Scan delivers.

CT Scan lawsuits, etc, including a significant quote from C. Everet
Koop: