Home|Hall Of Fame|Health Articles|Useful Links|Diabetes|Cancer|Personal Information

Media Appearances|Medical Experience|Private Practice|Appointments|Presentations|Books

Overview|Treatments History|Present Status|National Cancer Institute|Radiation Therapy

Radiation: A Flawed Solution To Cancer

Most of the therapies widely used by the traditional practitioner in the treatment of cancer throughout the world have at one time in their evolution themselves been touted as causing cancer. Radiation deserves some consideration before going on to the more acceptable an effective approaches.

Within one year of the discovery of x-ray, medicine began to freely use it in the treatment of numerous disorders, such as connective tissue diseases (including arthritis), hemorrhoids, thymus gland changes, eczema, warts, fungus infections, and warts. To medicine, as early as 1896, the use of x-ray treatment became an almost instant hit as the treatment of choice for many conditions. 

Cancers, however, were not routinely treated with radiation therapy until the early 20th century when its use took off like an explosion (excuse the pun), regardless of the fact that science had already recognized its obvious destructive side effects. The use of x-ray for the treatment of the most common of aliments became the universal panacea. By the 1940's even the public had become so fascinated with x-ray that they accepted it as a novelty. Entrepreneurs began using it to sell their wares and goods, like shoes.

During that period most shoe stores were actually able to increased their sales by allowing its customers the opportunity to visualize the bony structures of their feet under portable x-ray units.

Like many new treatments that have appeared throughout the history of medicine x-ray (radiation) did not threaten an already existing or ingrained treatment approach for any of the common diseases of the time. This certainly supports a simple retrospective observation that medicine is quick to accept a new therapy, as long as the new therapy doesn't jeopardize the financial structure (debt service) of the old therapy. In fact the use of radiation experienced only token opposition; warnings coming only from a few scientists, and non allopathic oriented practitioners.

Scientific Concern, began to mount in the 1950's; this concern centered around the excessive use of radiation. By now, it was now being used routinely in both diagnostics and also in therapeutics. Researchers at Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City became alarmed over their observations that thyroid cancers began to show up in adolescents who had received radiation treatment of their thymus glands in childhood. Later reports began to document that thyroid cancers could develop about 20 years following childhood radiation therapy. This, of course, was felt by many to be one of the origins of the sudden explosion in the number of cancer patients throughout the world.

Certainly, we must keep in mind that we still have ongoing case studies of an entire population who were exposed to massive doses of radiation during the war with Japan. These observations have only served to substantiate known complications of radiation exposure. Certainly, much of the following research concentrated on the safety of the routine use of x-rays for both the patient and the also the technicians administering the procedures. In fact, it became apparent that the prevalence of the development of blood borne cancers (leukemia) were considerably higher in radiologists and that the rate of spontaneous abortion seems to be greater in the radiology technician (most were female in the childbearing age group).

Given our present knowledge of the value of x-ray technology in diagnostics, and its potential for biological alterations, the medical community has, at least, began to take heed; if not for concern of the patient or the technical personnel, certainly for the potential of liability. Much is changing in disease diagnostics and treatments with regards to the judicial use of radiation technology; this is especially true in the development of more sophisticated gadgets that render precise (or pinpoint) use of radiation therapy.

Maybe much of this concern is for perpetuation of a dying industry, or maybe it's to preserve the status of liability protection. I, as lonely practitioner, can not judge;, I can only hope for the best given the state of the present and sometimes abusive use of this technology. This, of course, must certainly be placed into prospective, keeping in mind that all radiation that the human body is exposed to is accumulative over the life time of the body. 

Also let's remember that it is the belief of many in the medical and scientific fields that it is this process of radiation induced free radical damage that is responsible for chronic degenerative diseases and aging and many other degenerative disorders, including cancers.

It is very difficult for even the most knowledgeable of us to understand how we, as a nation of intelligent scientifically directed people, can justify the wholesale promotion and use of radiation therapy as a panacea to the treatment and cure of cancer, as disease of which the treatment is known to cause.

I will certainly admit their are few, but rare, cancers that temporarily do respond to the use of selective and judicious radiation. This does not automatically give carte blanc to the use of radiation therapy in the treatment of most cancers as it is presently used in this country.

It's also very hard for me as a physician to understand how a physician can still refer to him or her self as a physician when they thrive on violating the first tenet of our sacred oath, 'first do no harm'.

Home||Health Articles|Hall Of Fame|Useful Links

Diabetes|Cancer|Personal Information|Media Appearances|Medical Experience|Private Practice|Appointments|Presentations|Books Overview|Treatments History|Present Status|National Cancer Institute|Radiation Therapy

Click Here to visit the Healthy Doctors Blog that contains valuable information.

Disclaimer |Terms Of Use |Privacy Policy