|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The Efficacy of Radiotherapy By Don BenjaminFrom: .@. (Peter B) As usual he does not read any better than Janet Drew. That is what the problem is when you live by agenda, you see what you want and ignore the rest. Including truth. [.....] To justify why effectiveness has not been proven the Swedish Report states that "in all of medicine including radiotherapy, however, it is quite difficult and often impossible to organize randomized trials. One problem is that many techniques used in radiotherapy are considered clinically effective based on clinical experience, so withholding them from a patient to evaluate their scientific merit may be considered unethical.. For these and other reasons, other types of controlled prospective studies are more common than randomized trials.. Although the results of these types of studies are considered less valid and reliable than the results of randomized clinical trials, they may still provide valuable information on effectiveness." [...] Safe to say, keep it going, it is working. It is working sufficiently well that there is a high likelihood of patients dying when randomized testing is done at this time. [...] Because the higher radiation dose caused increased cardiovascular and ischaemic heart disease deaths but not increased heart attacks overall, the authors concluded that the mechanism of damage was radiation-induced microvascular damage to the heart. [....] Using old technology, perhaps. Using new high technology, focused triangulation with smaller beams below a micron in size allows organs to survive undamaged in most instances. Proton surgery for instance. Gamma knife. You can bet good ol' John runs to the md at the first sign of anything serious.
|
