KC Craichy shares about the impact of medical radiation on your body and what you can do about it.
KC Craichy talks with Dr. Patrick Purdue about the dangers of medical radiation.
KC: Welcome to Living Fuel TV. I’m KC Craichy. Think about this, it’s the middle of the night, you’ve just learned that your child has banged his head in sports, and they have rushed him to the emergency room. And they prescribed for him 500 x-rays, so every 15 minutes or every five minutes he’s going to get an x-ray, until they’re finished with 500 x-rays. And this is just so they can get the information to make them feel comfortable that everything is OK. Are you OK with that? Well, I’m excited to have special guest, Dr. Patrick Purdue. Dr. Purdue?
Dr. Purdue: Thank you.
KC: Is that essentially what they’re telling us?
Dr. Purdue: A CAT scan would be equivalent roughly to 500 chest x-rays of the patient.
KC: Five hundred chest x-rays.
Dr. Purdue: Yes.
KC: So it is not so unusual that you hear that you’ve had headaches, you’ve had an injury and they’ve prescribed a CAT scan, a CT-scan or some other kind of major radiation test. So what’s this doing to people?
Dr. Purdue: We’ve known since the study of survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, that radiation causes cancer. There is a very interesting fellow, who died a couple years ago, his name is Dr. John Gofman, most people have never heard of him. He is the man who invented the process for manufacturing plutonium. He worked on the atom bomb project in World War II and he’s the co-discoverer of Uranium 233. After the war, he became a cardiologist and is the man credited with discovering HDL and LDL cholesterol. So he’s not a scientific lightweight.
KC: MD, PhD.
Dr. Purdue: He published a study in 1999. I believe I wrote that down for you, and I think you’ve got a copy of it now. It’s an entire book, it’s not just a paper.
KC: I have a couple of text books from him. One of them you referred me to.
Dr. Purdue: Yes.
KC: It’s massive.
Dr. Purdue: And in that book he clearly demonstrated that there is a direct correlation between the increased rates of metastatic cancers of all type and ischemic heart disease that is equivalent to the level of exposure of radiation that you have. So, in other words, the more radiation, you have the higher the risk of cancer and heart disease.
KC: And we’re talking about a lifetime load?
Dr. Purdue: Life, it never goes away.
KC: So I believe it’s Gofman’s textbook talks about dosage for 16 frames for a dental x-ray and then regular x-rays and then CT-scans and so on, that over a lifetime just a woman over a 20 year period that does annual mammography, it’s an equivalent dose to being one mile from Hiroshima when the bomb went off.
Dr. Purdue: Yeah. Dr. Samuel Epstein, who’s the Dean of the University of Illinois School of Public Health, published a study in the Journal of Applied Radiation several years ago, that showed that a woman who gets ten mammograms has one half the radiation equivalent of standing one mile from the center of the Hiroshima bomb blast. So that can’t be good. A lot of what I hear from patients is that they’re told by their physicians who are prescribing mammograms that it’s really not that bad. One mammogram is roughly equivalent to the radiation you would get if you fly from Tampa to Los Angeles. That’s true, but the problem is total load, it’s the accumulation over a lifetime, so flying, plus mammograms, plus whatever x-rays you’ve had, it’s all plus, plus, plus, no one knows what dosage level you have. When I began to look into all this stuff a number of years ago and began to do some research on it and so forth, I finally became convinced that it would be a very rare day that I would recommend a radiological study to a patient. So now, everything I do is either MRI or ultrasound, which are safe. The’s no radiation involved.
KC: Or thermography.
Dr. Purdue: Or thermography, exactly. To back up some of these numbers, like Dr. Samuel Epstein, Dr. Gofman, in the Archives of Internal Medicine two years ago a study was published that showed that out of a group of women who avoided mammograms, there was 25% fewer breast cancers. So when you just look at the accumulation of literature, study after study, it begins to add up to saying, “Well, gee whiz, maybe that’s not really a good idea to give so much radiation.”
KC: Clearly. I mean you really have to take this into your own hands. This is so important that you understand that medical radiation is no benign. It’s not OK to get 16 frame dental x-ray every time your child goes to the dentist. This adds up over a lifetime. We talked about mammography. You know recently they changed the recommendation from every year to every other year. From after age 40 it was every year and now it’s after age 50 every other year. Is that correct?
Dr. Purdue: That’s true. Based on data that’s over ten years old, by the way.
KC: Well, the outrage was amazing to me. The outrage was you’re taking away our tests. All the news reporters, including some of the ones that I respect, they came out with this outrage that it’s just the medical system trying to save money, that they’re trying to save money by pushing off our mammograms to age 50 and giving it every other year at that point. But the truth is, it was an independent scientific council that came to that conclusion with overwhelming evidence of harm.
Dr. Purdue: Exactly.
KC: So what’s a woman to do? Thermography really is a very good thing to do after age what?
Dr. Purdue: Obviously after age 40, unless there’s other risk factors involved.
KC: Well, breast thermography is more widely available now if you just Google it in your area or any search engine. You’ll generally find some practitioners with breast thermography. Now it isn’t a single test that gives you an outcome, it’s a series that just shows the changes, right? So thermography actually shows the heat of growth of a foreign object growing in the breast.
Dr. Purdue: Yeah. Thermography does not image the tissue in the breast, but it’s a very good screening tool because it’s totally safe, and it gives us an idea of whether there’s an area that may be a problem that we need to investigate further. If that shows up, then we can image safely at the tissue in the breast with either a diagnostic breast ultrasound or breast MRI. Both of which are totally safe, no radiation involved. And I certainly negotiated with providers in my area to where we can get the cost of these imagining services way down. It doesn’t have to be expensive.
KC: That’s really important. So when you have a choice, listen, when you think about a CT-scan, a PET scan, a CAT scan, these things are hundreds of times the radiation dose of a conventional x-ray.
Dr. Purdue: Correct.
KC: A chest x-ray no less, hundreds of times. So if you’re having headaches and you’re doctor says, “Well, let’s get you a CT-scan.” You run to a different doctor because this is very dangerous. So if you’re told to get a CT-scan, ask yourself if you’re OK with running down to the imaging center and getting 500 x-rays to your head. If you’re not OK with that, then you probably ought to demand MRI, or ultrasound, or thermography, depending on which is clinically accurate. And this is really important, this is not you practicing medicine on your own, this is using wisdom. And this is the doctor’s own medical journals that are saying this. I know a lot of MDs who agree with this, who know that this is over prescribed. In fact, I’ll finish by saying that Bottom Line Health came out with something this week where they actually reduced the dose 90% of a CT-scan, and they were able to get the same information, 90% reduction. Now we had talked on this show a year ago about dialing it down 50%, and we know that in California there was a medical center who, when people were getting a CT- scan, after the scan their hair was falling out. They realized that it was dialed up way beyond what was OK. And they did 600 more patients with that before they turned it back down even though they knew this was going on. So this is a really important subject. We have a section on our site for medical radiation which you can look at our past shows on the subject and links and so on. We strongly encourage you to do that. Hope you enjoyed it. God bless you.
Dr. Purdue: Thank you very much.
KC: And God bless you. Have a great day.
KC Craichy interviews best-selling author Ty Bollinger about what started his quest to learn about ways to prevent and treat cancer.
KC: Welcome to LivingFuelTV. I’m KC Craichy. Cancer: Is it a death sentence? Today, we’re with special guest, Ty Bollinger, author of “Cancer: Step Outside the Box”. Again, the last segment was very, very interesting because we covered a lot of ground on the current way cancer is treated and some of the alternatives not really being known in the conventional circles. Now, let’s get a little more where the rubber meets the road, because basically everyone listening has some connection with someone that has a cancer issue if it’s not themselves. So, you had said an amazing World Health Organization statistic a moment ago…
Ty: One in two men, one in three women that are alive today will face a cancer diagnosis. It’s pervasive. It’s throughout society. Everyone has been touched with cancer.
KC: Everyone’s been touched. So, if you don’t mind dealing with a story of personal hurt for you, your parents died of cancer. Let’s go back to, say, your father. You didn’t know anything about this, you didn’t know anything that is in your book at the time. What happened, what was the chain of events, and what might you have done differently had you known what you know today?
Ty: Great questions, KC. To be honest with you, I had initially intended to write a book just about my father’s 25 days from diagnosis to death, and it was so painful to go over it that I had to wait three or four years after he died to begin writing because I couldn’t even think about it. By that time, I’d forgotten so much that I didn’t have enough information for a book so it’s the first chapter of this book. You really get to know my father. He was diagnosed. He had been having stomach pains for several weeks. He was a man of almost perfect health, we thought. He ate right. He knew about hydrogenated oils and a lot of the stuff that are really cancer causers before all this happened. He was just learning all these things when he was diagnosed. We thought he was the picture of health. As a matter of fact, three weeks before he was diagnosed, he went out – he was a basketball player – he had 100 free throws in a row in his backyard having cancer. The guy was amazing. I miss Dad. He was an amazing man. He was diagnosed July 1st, 1996, and 25 days later he died. They did do a total gastrectomy. They took out his entire stomach. They went in for what they thought were gall stones and the doctors came out several hours later and said his stomach’s full of cancer. We said, “What do we do?” And they said, “The only thing we can do is cut it out.” So, we let the doctor cut it out. Basically, over the course of the next 25 days, dad bled to death. He had 18 or 19 blood transfusions over the next three-plus weeks.
KC: So, let me ask the question, did your Dad die of cancer?
Ty: No. Adenocarcinoma is listed as the cause of death, I believe, on the death certificate. No. He didn’t die of cancer, he died from the surgery to fix the cancer.
KC: Which is unfortunately often the case.
KC: Many people die of complications from treatments, but they don’t really die of the original cause.
Ty: Right. That’s exactly what happened to my father. He died from the surgery to remove the cancer. I firmly believe if I had known what I know now, if I’d known it then, I would have told the doctor, “Sew him back up. We’re not going to take out his stomach. We’re going to begin treating it naturally.” That’s what we would have done differently. We would have begun to detox his colon because I know he had a toxic colon, and we would have begun to do a full-body detox on him. We would have begun boosting his immune system. We would have begun using a supplement. If we had super greens then, LivingFuel SuperGreens, I would’ve started using it then. It’s a great immune booster. Those are the different things that we would have done then if he had the knowledge. We didn’t have the knowledge, sp we went with the conventional doctors. They were doing the best they could. They were going with the knowledge they had, and it didn’t work.
KC: As we know, there’s no real silver bullet for cancer in a product or anything. Obviously, at the end of the day all healing comes from God.
Ty: That’s right.
KC: Let’s back up a little bit. Let’s say you go back to that situation now, and you don’t have all of this knowledge of the alternatives, but you do have all the knowledge you have now with regard to what questions you might ask the doctor. So, a lot of times this happens. People are in an emergency situation and the doctor comes out and says we have an emergency, you have to act now. How does one find out if this is a today life-or-death emergency or is it “Hey, I’m in there anyway, I need to deal with it while I’m in there?” How do you find out? What questions do you ask and what resource do you find? What doctor can you call and say, “Hey, what do I do here? They’re saying it’s an emergency and they need an answer right now.”
Ty: In the book I have a list in the appendix of clinics where there are natural and holistic doctors that are available for you to call and consult with. So, that would be something I would do differently now. If there was somebody in our family now, I’ve got a list of doctors I can call who are going to look at cancer from a holistic perspective that you can talk to.
KC: “Doctor, I need a few minutes. I’m going to go in here and pray, make a couple of phone calls, and just trust the Lord for that one moment of time and get some wisdom as to which way to go.”
Ty: Here’s the key, KC. You’ve got to have the knowledge before you go. That’s why I think this book is so important. It gives people knowledge on not just how to treat cancer but how to prevent cancer, how to stay healthy to start with. If they are diagnosed, they know what questions to ask in order to get a proper treatment course that’s in line with what they believe, in line with how they want to treat their cancer, whether it’s conventionally or holistically, they have the knowledge to do so. If you wait until afterwards to be empowered with the knowledge, it’s too late because now you’re going to be ramrodded by the conventional wisdom.
KC: For the viewers out here who are dealing with this, because we have people obviously right now who have just had a test and the doctor says, “We suspect and we want to do further tests.”
KC: We’ve done many programs here on the dangers of medical radiation and the overuse of CT scans and PET scans and all these things and even mammogram. We’ve seen in the literature that this actually can spark, speed up the cancer.
Ty: Yes. Monica and I were just talking about that earlier. Mammograms cause cancer.
KC: There’s a place for it. That’s the point. There’s a place for those kinds of things, but the overuse of these things is extremely detrimental.
Ty: Advanced thermography, by the way, is the better option than mammograms.
KC: We’ve done shows on that, so we agree with you on that. The point I’m trying to say is that what do people do, what are the questions that they ask? Now, they’re in the situation, they have a suspected diagnosis or even an actual diagnosis. They’ve listened to the person that’s going to give the treatment. That’s one thing. If the investment guy is trying to sell you a stock, you don’t just listen to him and buy stock from him. You get a second opinion and you weigh your options and you do your research.
Ty: If you have a diagnosis of cancer, it’s likely from a biopsy or they’ve done some kind of marker testing to see how elevated certain levels of hormones are in your body. There are certain other markers they test for cancer. You’re going to be able to get your hands on those tests, and you’re going to be able to fax or scan those to some doctors who are holistic. You can say, “Here’s what’s going on. What can you recommend for me? Could you treat this?” These are not quack doctors. These are medical doctors.
KC: There is the gentleman from Sloan-Kettering who went off and did his own cancer options, Ralph Moss. He has a great report.
Ty: Yeah, the Moss Report.
KC: Any kind of cancer you have, you call Ralph Moss and pay him a certain amount of money, he’ll overnight you every treatment for that particular cancer and the success rates and so on.
Ty: He’s one of many that you can consult with.
KC: That is the kind of information you have to have because that is clinical information that you hand your doctor and he cannot argue with. It’s really important that people have information. They’re not just going to go to the Internet and print something out because it could be wacky.
Ty: That’s the problem with the Internet.
KC: You have these credible people. He was the head of Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute. There is this guy and others who you point out in your book. If you can get a report on the medical and alternative ways to treat a certain particular kind of cancer and you know the success rates of each and who’s doing it, then you can make an informed decision.
KC: It’s awesome. We’ll continue with some more techniques and how to deal with certain situations in future segments.
Ty: That sounds great, KC.
KC: I hope you enjoyed it. God bless you and have a great day.
KC Craichy shares important information about what you can do to reduce your risk for cancer.
KC Craichy shares important information about mammography and what much of the media won’t tell you about medical radiation dangers.
KC: Welcome. I’m KC Craichy, founder and CEO of Living Fuel. Coming to you today with another health alert, relating to a health alert we put out not too long ago, on the dangers of medical radiation.
I’m amazed at the feedback we got on the subject. That most of you have no idea that these simple things like CT scans and mammography’s and such have actual real risks associated with the procedure, and that one needs to only have such procedures when it is extremely medically necessary.
Well today, I’ve been pondering whether or not to bring this to you. Because normally we do follow up on health alerts through Facebook and thru Twitter, which we invite you to join. Also our blog and our forum. But today, I needed to reach all of you because I personally am outraged at the way the media has covered a story lately regarding medical radiation. You know when you start touching on subjects like vaccination, and medical radiation, and mammography, and global warming, and evolution, you start really making people upset. So I’m already prepared for the deluge of emails I’m going to get from many of you but I’m going to give you facts as I see them.
First of all, I relate back again to Dr. Rongoff’s medical text book; has a lot of significant information on this subject. One thing he points out is that most of these medical procedures can be done at dramatically lower doses of radiation, and still give the same clinical benefit and there’s no negative to lowering the dose response.
As we know, a lifetime of radiation is the net lifetime load is what triggers disease or not. But the issue that it really has stricken me today, is that there’s been a great report. You’ve all seen in the news where the recommendation by independent scientific panel, has been changed on mammography. From starting mammography at 40 years to starting at 50 years old, and there’s been an absolute outrage from many of the people whom I very much respect in the new have taken a really bizarre position on this matter. Because somehow mammography has become a staple, a right, a basic human right and obviously mammography saves lives. And they have shown mammography has saved some people but a study came out recently reported by Natural News and others. That brought up some very interesting points that needed to be addressed because my contention is that mammography was changed, the recommendation was changed from 40 to 50, because of the risks associated with the procedure itself.
Now, we know we don’t do it under 40 because of the increase radiation load for young people because it’s a lifetime load once again. So, the change to 50 is actually a positive step, because mammography, we talked about this, a lifetime 20 mammography exams is roughly equivalent to standing one mile from Hiroshima when the bomb went off. So, we have to understand that this is serious business. Now we do understand that breast cancer kills a lot of people. The number one killer of women in the U.S, particularly black women, and dark skin women, and 500,000 people worldwide. So it’s no joking matter.
But what I want to point out is this procedure of screening, has not been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer. While screening is important there are other modalities that can actually get you similar information and also some things you can do in your lifestyle to minimize the possibility of this happening. But what I want to point is a quote that says “For a women in the screening subset of mammography detectible cancers there’s less than 5% change that mammography will save her life” wrote the researches from the University of Nebraska and John Stoger a Junior of Cook Hospital.
By comparing mammography, mammography’s lifesaving absolute benefit with its expected harms, a well-informed women along with her physician can make a reasonable decision to screen or not to screen, and that’s what this is about. I’m not telling you not to get mammography. But mammography and similar exams are to try to find a physical mass. A physical mass takes many years, probably ten years to form. But with some aggressive forms of cancer it can form between one year’s mammography and the next year’s mammography, and already have a very advance state. So for the ones that we’re normally looking for are a really small dime or less size mass, these things take ten years to form.
There are other technologies out there like thermography, which has been around since 1972 in various forms, and is really becoming advanced. Thermography judges the heat and cancer at all levels required blood flow. So when thermography finds the heat associated with additional blood flow, it can point out years in advance something about to form. So, obviously there are other things like ultrasound that can be done and so on but my main point today is it’s not the government take over trying to take away your mammography.
It is informed scientists trying to tell you that the risk exceeds the reward from age 40 to 50. Now the thing that needs to be pointed out here, is that the study that was just reported on, out of almost 3,000 women it took to prevent a single death. Now if these 3,000 women over a period of 20 years have 20 mammography’s, there chance of getting cancer is dramatically increased. So you really have to, again, weigh the risk and the reward. Now also, the other thing that is very significant, is that ever death saved also includes many false positives that people go through cancer procedures, and the trauma of thinking they have a problem, and sometimes even lose their breast because of a false positive. This is many more times the people that are actually found and saved. So, there are other ways to approach this issue. We’re going to put a lot of links on the site so that you can do your own research, but be well informed as this study says. Be well informed and make your own decisions. It is time to take charge of your own health care.
This is to your super health. God bless you, and have a great day.