By Dr. Mercola
A study in the journal Canceri
shows that people who have had dental X-rays are more
likely to develop a type of brain tumor called meningioma than
those who have not.
According to CNN Healthii
:
"The meningioma patients had more than a two-fold
increased likelihood of having ever experienced a dental
X-ray test called a bitewing exam. Depending on the age at
which the exams were done, those who'd had these exams on a
yearly basis, or more often, were 1.4 to 1.9 times more
likely to have had a meningioma.
... Panorex exams, which involve images of all of the
teeth on one film, were also linked to meningioma risks. If
study participants had panorex exams when they were younger
than 10 years old, their risk of meningioma went up 4.9
times. One of these around-the-head X-rays carries about
twice as much radiation as four bitewing X-rays."
How Often Should You Get Routine Dental X-Rays?
While this study does not necessarily establish causation
between dental X-rays and tumors, previous research has also
implicated dental X-rays in the development of thyroid cancer,
and research clearly shows this type of radiation is not
harmless...
Since the average age of the study's participants was 57,
researchers said the findings may be a result of X-rays given
years ago, with older technology and higher doses than those
administered with newer equipment.
However, researchers did express concern that even with the
lower dosage, people still get dental X-rays more frequently
than recommended by the American Dental Association (ADA).
According to ADA guidelinesiii
dental x-rays are recommended:
- Every two to three years for adult without cavities and
no increased risk for cavities, who is not new to his or her
dentist
- Annually or bi-annually for children without cavities
who's not at increased risk
According to CNN:
"There's currently a low threshold for dentists to
order dental X-rays, says Dr. Keith Black, director of the
Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved in the
study. Even if X-rays are not necessary for a procedure,
dentists often request them as part an annual exam.
Black hopes dentists will pay attention to this
research linking the X-rays to brain tumors. There are
important uses for dental X-rays in making decisions
regarding certain procedures. But if the teeth are otherwise
healthy, Black recommends against the radiation.
There is a latency period - a lag time - of about 20
to 25 years with meningiomas induced by radiation, O'Rourke
said. Only about 1% to 5% of meningiomas are cancerous, but
in people with known increased radiation exposure, that risk
can go up, he said."
It's worth noting the significant weaknesses of this study as
well. The study relied on self-reported data, meaning people
were asked to share how many bitewing, full-mouth and panorex
dental x-rays they'd had throughout their life. This clearly is
a major drawback of this study as it leaves plenty of room for
reporting errors—for better or for worse. That said,
there's plenty of evidence supporting the claim that x-rays and
medical imaging tests in general can be, and likely are,
a causative factor of future cancers.
My personal recommendation is to find a dentist that uses
digital X-ray equipment that does not use film but a sensor to
capture the image. This type of equipment typically generates 90
percent less radiation and is far safer. The dentist I see uses
this type of X-ray equipment.
Radiation Imaging Tests Increase Cancer and Heart Disease Risks
Diagnostic imaging tests such as X-rays, mammograms, and CT
machines have become a routine part of medical care. They're not
only used in major hospitals, but in private doctors' offices,
chiropractic offices, outpatient facilities and other medical
centers. According to the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurementsiv,
these types of tests are now so common that American's average
radiation exposure has increased seven times since
1980.
Unfortunately, many facilities can't (or don't want to) pay
for key safety experts like physicists and engineers to keep
these machines properly calibrated and maintained to avoid
over-exposure, since they do not contribute directly to the
financial bottom line.
According to John Gofman, MD, PhD, there is strong evidence
that HALF of all cancer deaths, and 60 percent of the death rate
from ischemic heart disease are induced by ionizing radiation
treatments...
Dr. Gofman is both a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor,
and is one of the leading experts in the world on this issue. He
presents compelling evidence backing up these assertions in his
book Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis
of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Diseasev.
For decades, x-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation have
been a proven cause of virtually all types of mutations,
especially structural chromosomal mutations. X-rays are also an
established cause of genomic instability, often a characteristic
of the most aggressive cancers.
It's tragic beyond belief, but many of our conventional
medical tests and treatments contribute to worsening disease
states, including cancer; and conventional cancer treatments are
oftentimes just as deadly as the disease itself. Granted,
virtually every action carries some level of risk.
Mammography May Cause More Harm than Good
At some point, we really should stop and admit we're doing
more harm than good, by the fact that the tests or treatments
are harming more people than they're helping... By some
accounts, we're at that point already.
Take
mammography for example.
The toxic effects of mammogram radiation are finally
being acknowledged as a significant factor in the development of
breast cancer, and several recent studies have clearly shown
that breast cancer screenings may be causing women more harm
than good. In September 2010, the New England Journal of
Medicinevi,
one of the most prestigious medical journals, published the
first study in years to examine the effectiveness of mammograms.
The data showed that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer
death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an
amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500
women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single
breast cancer death to be avoided!
Past research has also shown that adding an annual mammogram
to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not
improve breast cancer survival rates over physical examination
alone.
The latest report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) also
calls into question the role environmental exposure may be
playing in the development of breast cancer, and recommends more
research into the risks of various environmental exposures—such
as medical x-rays and mammography—over the course of a woman's
lifetime. Isn't it ironic that the mammogram—the principal
diagnostic test given to women to help detect and prevent breast
cancer—is actually responsible for increasing
your risk for developing it in the future?
Why is the War on Cancer Such a Miserable Failure?
There are many reasons, but one important one that needs to
be changed if we are to ever move forward, is the issue of
basing treatments on fraudulent and/or inaccurate research.
According to NBC News, recent studies on the "War
on Cancer" show that almost 90 percent of
"landmark" early stage cancer research looking for improved
treatments is just plain wrongvii.
The allegations about the questionable research appear in the
prestigious journal Natureviii,
in which the authors describe instances where they couldn't
replicate studies reported by major drug companies. In fact, out
of 53 studies widely cited by other researchers as "significant
progress" in the battle against cancer, only a measly 11 percent
of the conclusions were replicable. As stated by NBC News:
"In science, replication is proof. If a study can't
be reproduced reliably, it is wrong."
The reason the studies couldn't be replicated, they said, is
because scientists often ignore negative findings in their
results that might raise a warning. Instead, they opt for
cherry-picking conclusions in an effort to put their research in
a favorable light.
According to NBC Newsix
:
"As Begley and Ellis detail it, "To obtain funding, a
job, promotion or tenure, researchers need a strong
publication record…Journal editors, reviewers, and grant
review committees... often look for a scientific finding
that is simple, clear and complete—a 'perfect' story. It is
therefore tempting for investigators to submit suspected
data sets for publication, or even to massage data."
Whatever the motivation, the results are all too often
wrong.
Begley and Ellis call for nothing less than a change
in the culture of cancer research. They demand more
willingness to admit to imperfections and an end to the
practice of failing to publish negative results. "We in the
field," they say, "must remain focused on the purpose of
cancer research: to improve the lives of patients."
Overused Medical Procedures that Needlessly Waste Billions of
Dollars
Sadly, all these errors in judgment end up costing us—both in
lives lost due to inaccurate medicine, and in dollars and cents
paid. Every dollar adds up, as any shopping trip will show you,
and wasteful medicine costs the U.S. healthcare system an
estimated $700 BILLION a year!x
Using rigorous scientific approaches, a team of specialty
physicians recently identified no less than 45 tests and
procedures that are commonly used but have no proven benefit
for patients—and sometimes cause more harm than good. The
team included nine different U.S. medical special societies
representing 374,000 physicians. The 45 evidence-based
recommendations are posted on the website ChoosingWisely.orgxi,
created to educate both doctors and patients about working to
improve medical care while reducing costs. Among the items on
this list are:
|
Use of unproven diagnostic tests |
Unnecessary use of CT scans and routine X-rays |
Pap smears on women younger than 21 or on women who have
had a hysterectomy |
|
Routine cancer screening for dialysis patients with
limited life expectancies |
Stress cardiac imaging or coronary angiography in
patients without cardiac symptoms |
Brain imaging scans after fainting |
|
Antibiotics for uncomplicated sinus infections that are
caused by viruses |
Imaging of the lower spine within the first six weeks
after suffering back pain |
Bone scans for early prostate and breast cancer patients
at low risk of metastasis |
How Drug Companies Manipulate Research Evidence to Fool You
While part of the problem currently plaguing our medical
system relates to human errors, another part of the problem is
outright fraud, deception, and manipulation of science for
profit alone. A new series featured in an online forum offers
insight into how the pharmaceutical industry manipulates
research, from what you hear in the news to the actual medical
journals this medical fiction is published in.
According to The Conversationxii,
transparency in medicine—if it even exists—is clouded by the way
marketing departments control and distort information in the
medical literature.
Jon Jureidini is a professor of psychiatry at the University
of Adelaide (Australia), and he got an inside look at this murky
mess while examining drug company internal documents as an
expert witness in a case against a pharmaceutical company.
Provided with access to a huge number of internal documents, he
learned that various drug companies gave millions of dollars not
only to academic institutions to fund research, but also to
individual researchers.
The documents also showed "serious misrepresentation" of both
the effectiveness and safety of certain drugs, with published
articles making the research appear positive and negative
secondary outcomes deleted. When you consider that THIS is the
type of research data that then ends up being used to make
treatment decisions for years to come, is it any wonder we're in
such an expensive and ineffective mess—and further than ever
from winning the war against cancer?
Is the Price Americans Pay for Cancer Treatment Worth the
Results?
In an analysis of the cancer industry, a public policy
researcher has published a paperxiii
suggesting that when it comes to cancer care, the
higher price paid by Americans for their cancer care is "worth
it," the LA Times reportsxiv
.
"First, the team examined the costs — and found that
Americans spend much more on cancer care than Europeans,
with U.S. spending increasing 49%, from $47,000 per case to
$70,000 per case (in 2010 dollars,) between 1983 and 1999.
In the European countries, spending grew 16% over the same
period, from $38,000 to $44,000.
Then they looked at survival data for patients with
types of cancer, including breast, prostate, colorectal and
blood cancers, among others. Comparing length of time from
diagnosis to death, as well as differences in survival gains
over time, they discovered that among patients diagnosed
from 1995 to 1999, average survival in the U.S was 11.1
years and in the European countries studied was 9.3 years.
Finally, the team used a standard method to put a
"conservative" monetary value on the extra longevity of
$150,000 per year. Crunching all the numbers, they found
that the extra years Americans enjoyed amounted to $598
billion worth of benefit over the period studied — about
$61,000, on average, per patient."
I don't know about you, but I think there are multiple ways
of evaluating whether it's "worth" paying nearly 50 percent
more for cancer treatment than people with cancer in other
countries are being charged, and only getting an extra two years
of survival out of it...
Cancer's Greatest Enemy: Your Immune System
So, if conventional medicine isn't moving in the right
direction, what's the answer? How can you avoid becoming another
statistic? Well, recent discoveries suggest that your immune
system is actually designed to eliminate
cancer naturally. However, when you implement caustic medical
interventions (such as radiation and chemotherapy) that damage
your immune system so that it cannot respond appropriately, you
are destroying your body's best chances for healing. There is
now a great deal of scientific evidence supporting the theory
that your own immune system is your best weapon against
cancer:
- Individuals with liver or ovarian cancer survive longer
if their killer T cells have invaded their tumors.
- A 2005 study showed that colon cancers that most
strongly attract T cells are the least likely to recur after
treatment.xv
- Another study found that 60 percent of precancerous
cervical cells (found on PAP tests) revert to normal within
a year, and 90 percent revert within three years.xvi
- Some kidney cancers are known to regress, even when
highly advanced.
Thirty Percent of Breast Tumors Go Away on their Own
The presence of white blood cells in and around a tumor is
often an indication that the cancer will go into remission—or
even vanish altogether—as this New York Times article
explainsxvii
. And breast cancer is no exception. According to
breast surgeon Susan Love of UCLA, at least 30 percent of tumors
found on mammograms would go away if you did absolutely nothing.xviii
These tumors appear to be destined to stop growing on
their own, shrink, and even go away completely.
This begs the question—how many cancer cures that are
attributed to modern interventions like chemotherapy and
radiation, are actually just a function of the individual's
immune system ridding itself of the tumor on its own? And how
many people get over cancer in spite of the treatments
that wreak havoc on the body, rather than because of
them?
It is impossible to definitively answer these questions. But
it is safe to say that the strength of your immune system is a
major factor in determining whether or not you will beat cancer,
once you have it. Nearly everyone has cancerous and
pre-cancerous cells in their body by middle age, but not
everyone develops cancer. The difference lies in the robustness
of each person's immune system.
Dr. Barnett Kramer of NIHxix
says it's becoming increasingly clear that cancers
require more than just mutations to progress. They need the
cooperation of surrounding cells, certain immune responses, and
hormones to fuel them. Kramer describes cancer as a dynamic
process, whereas it used to be regarded as "an arrow that moved
in one direction" (e.g., from bad to worse). What does this mean
for you?
The better you take care of your immune system, the
better it will take care of you.
One way to strengthen your immune system is to minimize your
exposure to mammograms and other sources of ionizing radiation.
But you can also build up your immune system DAILY by making
good diet and lifestyle choices. One of the best ways to do this
is by optimizing your vitamin D level.
Vitamin D: Cancer Fighter Extraordinaire
Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every
cell in your body, is one of nature's most potent cancer
fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in
almost every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain.
Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D
in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or
activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to
repair damage and eradicate cancer cells.
Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger
apoptosis, or cancer cell death.
When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of
New York at Albany, injected a potent form of
vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them
shriveled up and died within days. The vitamin D worked as well
at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug
Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and
at a tiny fraction of the cost.
I strongly recommend making sure your vitamin D level is 70
to 100ng/ml if you've received a breast cancer diagnosis. You
can achieve this through direct, safe exposure to ultraviolet
light, or if this is not possible, by taking an oral vitamin D3
supplement. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer
treatment I am aware of, without adverse effects. Please watch
my free one-hour lecture on
vitamin D for more information. For a comprehensive guide to
breast cancer prevention and treatment, refer to this previous
article. Some of the other research-based breast cancer
fighters include the following:
- Eating plenty of fresh, whole, organic vegetables,
especially fermented vegetables
- Avoiding all processed foods, and minimizing sugar,
grains and starchy foods
- Vitamin A plays a role in preventing breast cancer; your
best sources are organic egg yolks, raw milk and butter, and
beef and chicken liver (from organically raised, grass
pastured animals)
- Curcumin (the active agent in turmeric) is one of the
most potent tumor-inhibiting foods; black cohosh,
artemisinin, green tea, kelp, cruciferous vegetables and
evening primrose oil also show promise in helping to prevent
breast cancer
- Exercising regularly
References: