Unnecessary CT scans are giving people cancer!

You’ve been complaining about the pain in your abdomen that just won’t go away and your doctor lines you up for a cat scan. You lie on the narrow table that slides in and out of the overhead tunnel, whilst x-ray beams rotate and produce sliced images of your very interior.

Such commonplace imaging should not be taken lightly or performed as often as it does, with recent research revealing that radiation from CT scans can cause cancer decades after patient exposure. The research, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine states that the doses delivered by the CT scanners were higher than previously thought, and were in fact extremely variable lacking the rigors of standardization across the industry.

This is of increasing concern due to the escalating use of computed tomography both in symptomatic patients and more recently in the screening of asymptomatic patients. The popularity of this diagnostic procedure has increased over the past few decades, with the number of annual CT procedures performed in the United States rising from 3 million in 1980, to approximately 70 million in 2007.

Computed tomography, commonly referred to as a CT scan, plays a vital part in modern medicine, transforming medical imaging by providing three-dimensional views of the body. However, it does so by delivering extremely large doses of radiation with a CT scan of the chest bombarding the body with more than 100 times the radiation than a routine chest x-ray. Delivering even more radiation, is the CT coronary angiogram which is capable of submitting the patient to the equivalent of 309 chest X-rays leading to the conclusion that one 40-year-old woman out of 270 who underwent a CT scan of coronary arteries would develop cancer as a result of the test.

The authors of the study criticize the increasing use of CT screening for healthy patients and suggest that the risk of carcinogenesis outweighs any diagnostic value. The risks of CT scanning are greatest for the young because they are naturally more radiosensitive, and because they have more remaining years of life during which a radiation-induced cancer could develop.

The increase in CT scanning is driven by many factors, including the ever growing availability of the scanners, and the technology’s expanding detection qualities. Also contributing to the increase in CT usage is the rise in defensive medicine, resulting in physicians ordering unnecessary imaging to avoid expensive lawsuits.

It is estimated that about one-third of all CT scans are not needed. The authors of the study into the risks associated with CT scanning, claim that there is growing consensus that the risks to patients from radiation via cat scans need to be reduced. They argue for the levels of radiation to be standardized across the industry and for a reduction in the number of scans performed. Another method of curtailing the abuse would be the introduction of an electronic tracking system to record the radiation dosage of individual cat scans.

The CT imaging of your abdomen is now over. You are relieved and glad that it was quick and painless. You are soon on your way, ready to carry on your day’s activities.

Let’s hope the risk was worth it!

Swine Flu Vaccine for Babies

“Australians should shed their no-worries attitude and make sure their families are vaccinated against swine flu,” said the Australian federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon on the 3rd December
And within two weeks the swine flu vaccine will be available free for all children between six months and nine years, after the Therapeutic Goods Administration approved Panvax Junior for young children on Thursday.

I hope she vaccinates her own child first before submitting the masses to this vaccine for which there is no need,
Minister for health Roxon continued insisting that :
Children under nine years will need two doses for the vaccine to work fully. The first dose provides good protection, and the second dose taken 28 days later will boost the initial shot.
The ministers plea for parents to vaccinate their babies with swine flu vaccine wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the swine flu vaccine has been available for months, but only five million doses have been administered from the stock of 21 million doses.’
Well there are all those little babies out there …..

Nicola Roxon said that “We are in a global battle against this pandemic,"
Battle she says…well no more than any other flu battle
The swine flu itself has killed about 2/3000 people total. The regular flu kills 40 000 plus per year – so why are we freaking out about swine flu, and not normal flu?
Does that make sense? no.
Nicola Roxon hopes that the Australian way of being too laid back will not interefere with the need to protect ourselves against this trumped up battle.

George Mamouzellos is a Pharmacist from the University of South Australia
He says that several swine flu vaccine manufacturers have asked governments to give them an exemption from lawsuits, in case the vaccine caused harm in people. He asks …..If you made a vaccine that you knew worked, then why would you need a legal exemption in case it hurt people? He calls this action a Massive warning sign.

The swine flu vaccine manufacturers themselves don't believe its safe.If the regular flu kills 40 000 plus per year, and the swine flu only killed 2/3 000 – then why are governments buying it in advance, giving it to us for free, and giving drug manufacturers immunity to legal cases against them? Does that make sense? no.

The swine flu vaccine contains 2 horribly dangerous compounds – one is called thimerosol. It is made 50% of mercury. It binds to receptors in your brain, and basically causes brain damage. Is it smart to be injected with thimerosol, and get brain damage, dropping 10 IQ points and going dumb, in order to avoid getting a flu that kills 95% less people than regular flu? no.The other horrible in gredient is called squalene. Squalene accidentally tricks your immune system into killing your own cells, which creates autoimmune diseases like asthma, multiple scelerosis, diabetes, and a bunch of other diseases.

Is it smart to inject yourself with that stuff, in order to avoid a relatively mild flu, like the swine flu? no.If you're a pregnant mother about to take Panvax, ask yourself this – why would you take Panvax, when it contains Neomycin and Polymyxin B Sulfate – both of which exhibit positive risk to unborn children – so as to avoid what? A mild flu, that kills 95% fewer people than the regular flu?

George Mamouzellos the Pharmacist finishes his rant…. if someone came up to me with a syringe full of swine flu vaccine, or came near my family with one – I would take the needle off them and poke them with it myself – followed by several very hard punches. This stuff is poison. Don't take it. Dont let your friends take it. Don't let your family take it. If some idiot in a lab coat asks you if you want it, ask them about thimerosol, squalene, and why the company making it wants legal exemption from being sued.

And it may soon become impossible to avoid these vaccines as the news from south australia would suggest:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26375106-2682,00.html

HEALTH authorities want the power to detain people for up to three months if they refuse testing or treatment for infectious diseases.
Under draft legislation proposed by the State Government, someone with swine flu, measles or meningococcal disease could be forcibly held, examined and treated.
It is one of several wide-ranging powers sought to protect the public.

The Public Health Bill also would, for the first time, give authorities the power to override parents who refused treatment for their children with infectious conditions.
Other diseases that could be controlled include AIDS, polio, rabies, salmonella and cholera.
The tougher enforcement powers would come with a substantial increase in fines - up from $60,000 to $1 million and 10 years' jail - and relate to any serious risk caused to public health.

SA Health public health director Kevin Buckett said the new legislation would give authorities wider powers to act more quickly.
"There's nowhere on Earth that is more than 36 hours from anywhere else and where people go, bugs can go," he said yesterday.
"We have to have legislation that can respond in that sort of time.

"The idea would be that we get them out of circulation, where they can't infect other people." Dr Buckett said there were many reasons people refused treatment, including mental health issues, language barriers and even malicious behaviour.
Non-communicable diseases, such as cancer and diabetes, could also be declared, allowing the Government to introduce codes of practice for certain industries or the community. Opposition health spokesman Duncan McFetridge said he supported powers to protect the public from infectious diseases but feared parts of the Bill - to be debated next year - would allow the Government to control people with chronic conditions.

"It's bordering on nanny-state legislation," he said. "It's understandable but how far do we go?"
Australian Medical Associat- ion state president Andrew Lavender said he welcomed most of the changes as important to protect the public.

There is no doubt that these regulators are quite mad!