Thank you, I was not aware of this work. I am sorry that you were persecuted for your work. I know France now does less mammography than we do in UK which suggests someone listened. I also read recently about the dangers of ultrasound scanning which I was unaware of. Let us hope that we can maintain uncensored sharing of real science so more become aware of risks.
Not harmless at all. They heat up the amniotic fluid and have deleterious effects on the baby is what my midwife told me 28 years ago. A childhood friend, whose husband was a radiologist, had about 19 ultrasounds done on her child, and he was born with a multitude of medical issues! 😢
-. You wrote: “ These studies find a number of cancers more than 100 times greater than the prediction of the LNT model”. I am assuming that this must be for a particular limited scenario, such a low levels of exposure, because if total cancers were 100 times prediction the model would be thrown away. Can you say a little more about this?
- Is it possible that the benefit of early discovery & treatment that medical scans provide still results in overall better population longevity even if the scans cause a small number of cancers?
The observations that show a risk 100 times greater than the model concern screening by mammography and breast cancer. The risk to other organs may be less.
It might be possible to determine what the risk of each radiological examination would be and to calculate the risk-benefit for each indication.
But the problem is that the question is not scientific. There can be no science when people are fired for their scientific work.
Thank you, I was not aware of this work. I am sorry that you were persecuted for your work. I know France now does less mammography than we do in UK which suggests someone listened. I also read recently about the dangers of ultrasound scanning which I was unaware of. Let us hope that we can maintain uncensored sharing of real science so more become aware of risks.
would be interested if you had any information on the dangers of ultrasound.
This article has several suggestions for further reading. https://jennifermargulis.net/the-possible-dangers-of-obstetric-ultrasound/
I haven 't looked into it much as I only came across it recently. Its another one of those things that seems harmless ...
Not harmless at all. They heat up the amniotic fluid and have deleterious effects on the baby is what my midwife told me 28 years ago. A childhood friend, whose husband was a radiologist, had about 19 ultrasounds done on her child, and he was born with a multitude of medical issues! 😢
Merci pour votre travail et votre persévérance, et surtout courage !
Votre honnêteté vaincra leur lâcheté !
Merci !
nerve-racking...
Two questions
-. You wrote: “ These studies find a number of cancers more than 100 times greater than the prediction of the LNT model”. I am assuming that this must be for a particular limited scenario, such a low levels of exposure, because if total cancers were 100 times prediction the model would be thrown away. Can you say a little more about this?
- Is it possible that the benefit of early discovery & treatment that medical scans provide still results in overall better population longevity even if the scans cause a small number of cancers?
The observations that show a risk 100 times greater than the model concern screening by mammography and breast cancer. The risk to other organs may be less.
It might be possible to determine what the risk of each radiological examination would be and to calculate the risk-benefit for each indication.
But the problem is that the question is not scientific. There can be no science when people are fired for their scientific work.
Thank you for your reply.
I agree, we lose so much when people are unable to follow the evidence where it leads