Posted on 09/19/2025 1:41:04 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Sorry, Medpage got me again,
Ping
Why would you do unnecessary imaging of children in the first place?
It is not the 1950s where the foot x-ray machine is a cool free toy to play with.
All imaging costs money. Lots of it. So who are these people taking their kids in for funnzies?
I don't think parents are doing it for funzies, except maybe MBP parents. But some doctors/groups like to do a lot of test. It would be an interesting analysis of why they are ordered.
Safe and effective.
Begs the question as to why the kids are get 2-3 CTs to begin with. If they are already suffering serious illness in childhood, it’s not that surprising to see illness later.
Everybody’s tires wear a bit differently. It depends on the car you start with and the roads you take. It could be that, in this study, it’s more the car than the roads.
This reads to me like anything other than the CoupFlu vaxxes...
Which scans?
CT and what else?
Like a possibly broken bone. Which in kids can be strangely hard to detect. Broken, cracked or just strained can all show pretty much the same on the surface.
Maybe we have just been lucky with our pediatricians but one cub has ever needed a medical scan. Turned out, yes, broken but non-displaced.
Probably the reason for the increased/necessary imaging 😩
but no matter,we in western societies,pushed by big pharma and the medical industrial complex and their lawyers seek too often to use multiple medical treatments to our detriment,when simple patience and good nutrition would work.
I hear the ancient Mexican Aztecs had a special Sun God ceremony that was their "go to" cure for everything.
Anyone remember those x-ray machines in shoe stores that would image your toes in the new shoes?
I’m nearly 67. I’ve never had a CT or MRI scan.
It is my understanding that digital x-rays involve less radiation than film x-rays.
“3.7 million children...2,961 hematologic cancers”
The risk is lower than simple division would indicate, but it does seem to be considerable.
My next CT happened at age 50. I read the interpretation that included a humorous comment (to me) that the image was difficult to interpret due to a "paucity of fat". I weighed 145 lb at a height of 5 ft 11 in. 9% fat.
The next CT encounter happened at age 67. It would be one of many examining my liver, pancreas and duodenum. An MRI and ERCP as well. Suspicious "nodes" on my lungs too. After the Whipple procedure to remove the duodenum and cancer, more CTs to follow up post operative infections.
The last CT PET scan occurred in June of this year. The goal was to find any abnormal uptake of glucose indicating active cancer. Only a small "abnormal" rate was seen where my stomach was sewn onto the jejunum. Just on the edge of "normal".
I had additional fluoroscopic style exposures while placing drains to remove blood from my peritoneum after a nick renal artery bleed out and pocket of infection between my liver and stomach. CT of my lungs as well due to MRSA pneumonia. Hopefully I'm finished with the CT scans and they haven't triggered more problems.
A CT scan is like a whole bunch of x-rays. So that is why it would be more harmful than just a single x-ray.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.