It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Scientists Say No Level Of Radiation "Safe"

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I suppose then, one has to ask oneself...

Is the procedure more harmful than the condition?

With cardiology particularly, the answer would generally be "no, not as a rule".

There will always be a risk with virtually any medical procedure; it seems to be more a question of assessing the need for the procedure versus possibly risks therein.



Check out standard insurance policy definitions for "medical necessity," "medically necessary," and "medically unnecessary" - you will find that non-invasive no-radiation tests for early diagnosis are considered "medically unnecessary" - and "preventive" treatments also are deemed "medically unnecessary."

[QUOTE]

...As a result, we are left undiagnosed and untreated, and our diseases are allowed to progress. We are given "medical bandaids" like painkillers that speed progression, and trigger complications like high blood pressure or coagulation disorders. Added medications speed progression even more quickly, and cause more complications. Finally, our symptoms become disabling or potentially life threatening - and only then, our insurance coverage gets triggered.

Once we're in the medical system, standard insurance terms promote diagnostic and treatment procedures that are invasive, and involve high levels of radiation exposure. These procedures are dangerous: they compromise already fragile blood vessels, speed disease progression further, and create more biomolecular complications in already unstable proteins and cells.

Even so, we sometimes need whatever help we can get. If you are having trouble getting healthcare, here are a few links to organizations that can help you...

[END QUOTE]

Medicare Rights Center (formerly Medicare Beneficiaries Defense Fund) - Medicare counseling hotline and informational pamphlets
1460 Broadway
8th floor
New York, NY 10036-7393
(212) 869-3850
www.medicarerights.org...

National Health Law Program - focus on analysis of legislative changes affecting low-income health consumers. Call if you have questions about Medicaid, managed care, federal funding for children's preventive care, government responsibility to provide care, or how to understand your state or local health care system
www.healthlaw.org...

Center for Medical Consumers - Information clearinghouse on common surgical procedures
237 Thompson Street
New York, NY 10012
(212) 674-7105
www.medicalconsumers.org...

OTHER IMPORTANT SOURCES:

Worst Pills, Best Pills
www.worstpills.org...

Drug Safety
www.citizen.org...

Healthcare Delivery
www.citizen.org...

Medical Devices
www.citizen.org...

Food Safety
www.citizen.org...

Occupational Health
www.citizen.org...

Health Links
www.citizen.org...

Health Activism
www.citizen.org...

Health Letter
www.citizen.org...

Article list
www.citizen.org...


.




posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
That's only in the US, soficrow. It's often much different elsewhere (the UK for example), although cost and insurance are obviouly big issues here in the States.

Perhaps part of the bigger tragedy is that healthcare here is associated with what a patient can or cannot afford.

(fwiw, even in the US, certain invasive and non-invasive diagnostic procedures can be deemed "medically necessary"; trans-esophageal echocardiograms are one example, and depending on your medical team, angiograms may also be covered. Whether or not the health insurance company and/or Medicare/aid would be happy with this is another matter; but it's not uncommon for both to "approve" such procedures in reality)



Edited because I can't spell without caffeine....

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
That's only in the US, soficrow. It's often much different elsewhere (the UK for example)




Not according to my -extensive- research. ...Public plans and private insurance companies all rely on international "re-insurance" corporations to cover their policies - and the international guys set the terms of coverage.

...Go ahead and search "medical necessity" "medically necessary" and "medically unnecessay" - especially with respect to "fibromuscular dysplasia."




(fwiw, even in the US, certain invasive and non-invasive diagnostic procedures can be deemed "medically necessary"; trans-esophageal echocardiograms are one example, and depending on your medical team, angiograms may also be covered. Whether or not the health insurance company and/or Medicare/aid would be happy with this is another matter; but it's not uncommon for both to "approve" such procedures in reality)



...You've just made my point - insurance companies promote the use of invasive procedures - and disallow early non-invasive diagnostic tests as "investigational." ...Diseases caused by misfolded proteins are diagnosed only after they have progressed, and intervention is then, of necessity, invasive (ie., including surgery, angioplasty)


.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   


Not according to my -extensive- research. ...Public plans and private insurance companies all rely on international "re-insurance" corporations to cover their policies - and the international guys set the terms of coverage.


That does seem to be overgeneralising to a degree.

Maybe my experience being treated in both countries might offer a different perspective?

Condition X can often be diagnosed by ultrasound. My insurance coverage in the US stated a set protocol be followed:

Blood tests first (considered non-invasive), to exclude other conditions.
Ultrasound - noninvasive.
MRI - noninvasive.

Only then, if diagnosis has not been made or if further treatment is necessary, are invasive procedures considered. This was apparently standard for the condition, and standard with two different insurance companies.

In the UK, a similar protocol was used, but with more hesitancy towards using invasive procedures at all; iow, if such could be avoided, then avoided they were. The emphasis was on diagnosing and treating the condition with the least invasive means possible.

Having said that, it's an area where there just isn't a set black/white rulebook; we can't really say insurance companies will always suggest invasive versus noninvasive, as there are myriad examples of the opposite. Every condition requires a different course; some can be diagnosed easily with non-invasive procedures, and these are often the preferred choice.



...You've just made my point - insurance companies promote the use of invasive procedures - and disallow early non-invasive diagnostic tests as "investigational." ...Diseases caused by misfolded proteins are diagnosed only after they have progressed, and intervention is then, of necessity, invasive (ie., including surgery, angioplasty)


Perhaps also, you could clarify which early non-invasive tests are classed as "investigational"? Conditions vary to such a degree that there's no blanket "insurance companies will always....." rule that would apply across the board.

We also should consider the fun element of malpractice insurance. With any "newer" procedure the risks of complications are always higher; whoever is footing the bill (insurance company, charity, patient) is generally going to try to find less risky procedures if at all possible.

This often applies to treatment, too; if a treatment consists of something still in the investigational stage, both patient and treatment team will generally want to try something less risky, and believe it or not, less invasive, if they can. The US in particular is very, very afraid of malpractice lawsuits, and these little suits can extinguish the livelihood of a given practitioner.

Fwiw, I've worked within the pharmaceutical and medical arenas in several capacities; clinical research, medicolegal investigation and patient advocacy; working on both sides of the Atlantic has shown me some interesting similarities, and some very interesting differences between the two systems!



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Will these events spark the "radiation" spoke of? Maybe not...but..it doesn't hurt to pretend...



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Nobody gets out alive.

Just thought I'd clarify that. It is a complete waste of time to worry about stuff like this. Stay as safe as practical, have all the fun you can while you can, reproduce if possible, and stop worrying.

It won't make you live forever to worry.

Pick your poison- and play nice. We're as permanent as flowers.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
If it's not the radiation, it's going to be one of about 10 billion other things that will make us sick or kill us, so I agree with Chakotay on this. Go out and have fun.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If it's not the radiation, it's going to be one of about 10 billion other things that will make us sick or kill us, so I agree with Chakotay on this. Go out and have fun.


Most of us do know this


It doesn't hurt though, to discuss the elements therein.

To paraphrase a certain snippity little flash squirrel...

"Let me choose how I'm going to die, in peace, dammit!"

Now pass me the burgers, let me go and get my X-ray done, and I'll see y'all on the other side



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Fwiw, I've worked within the pharmaceutical and medical arenas in several capacities; clinical research, medicolegal investigation and patient advocacy; working on both sides of the Atlantic has shown me some interesting similarities, and some very interesting differences between the two systems!




Marvelous!

fyi - I have lived in both the USA and Canada. My professional qualifications aside, I have been a "health consumer" in both countries, diagnosed with fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD). FMD represents a complex conundrum, and illustrates my claims as they apply to both public and private insurance in the USA and Canada. I look forward to investigating the puzzle with you from a variety of perspectives...

Unfortunately, today is "Canada Day" and I currently live in Canada - so I have family obligations in addition to dealing with an array of distracting symptoms. ...This by way of explaining that I need to put you off, and to apologize for doing so. I hope to respond soon, but it may take a couple of days. Sorry.

btw - what does 'fwiw' stand for?





posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Absolutely!

Looking forward to it


(fwiw = for what it's worth. Very lazy acronym, and one I'm hopelessly guilty of using!)



Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and research some more.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
While the glue on my canoe is drying. We have repair mechanisms at the genetic level- nanomachines that 'examine' DNA sequences for errors. When one is found, it is 'repaired'. This process goes on constantly. Of course, with time, errors accumulate. When this happens and a cell goes 'rougue', another layer of defense comes into play. Killer cells and certain viruses are attracted by antibodies that adhere to rougue cells, which are then consumed. Given enough time, even these systems degrade, then macroconditions develop that will be recognized by yet another layer of defense: the human cortex. When a malignancy is recognized, we deploy all the tools of modern and ancient medicine to combat it. These processes occur in everyone every day (or rather, mostly at night). So the scientists are correct- no level of radiation is 'safe'- but like it or not we are constantly exposed to a level of radiation (natural and artificial)- and other carcinogens- that is 'practical'. For most of us. For awhile.

It is best to avoid artificial radiation as much as possible.

Finally, we reincarnate. I guess you could call that the 'final layer of defense'- the eternal, impenetrable soul. Fresh horses for the gods. New tires for the old truck. A spiritual change of clothes.

Not exactly the most attractive system, but centuries of meditation in millions of stupas on thousands of worlds have failed to produce a workable alternative system that still allows one to enjoy the sensations of corporeal existance...



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Hi all - still doing long weekend stuff, but got distracted with a related topic. Check this out:
Eli Lilly Disses Blockbusters, Plugs Personalized Medicine: Medicaid Chokes

...Be back here soon.

PS. Chakotay - Your take is spiritually positive, but unbalanced. IMO - it is possible to achieve spiritual harmony, and still deal with hard truths, which is the only way that really counts.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Soficrow...yes, I read that article and my immediate reaction was...

Something unprintable


Naively, I was a little shocked at such a blatant expression of...well...consumer gouging.

Now..back to my research!

(don't you just hate when real life gets in the way of ATS? The very nerve!)



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I read that article ... I was a little shocked at such a blatant expression of...well...consumer gouging.




Hmmm. IMO - Blockbusters - and late stage radiation exposure for diagnosis and treatment - are consumer gouging. Especially the painkillers that speed progression and create complications - but remain the only option until the disease becomes acute or life threatening..





(don't you just hate when real life gets in the way of ATS? The very nerve!)


LOL. I do. I do hate it.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join