MRI & CT Scan Dangers – With Comments from Dr. Gordon

Cat, MRI’s and myocardial perfusion studies are potentially dangerous (cancer risk) and often offer no real benefit to patients.

This report about cumulative doses of radiation on today’s medicine and lack of real benefit to patients strongly supports my belief that they are hurting patients today with their drugs and surgery. Of course there is no real money in treating the causes, so this abuse will continue and we could easily imagine it getting worse when government steps in to fix health care.

“Moreover, despite abnormalities on myocardial perfusion scans being powerful predictors of future events, no study has shown that aggressive therapy in these high-risk patients can improve future outcomes, notes Lauer.”

Personally I like tests, as without a little fear patients will go off any health promoting program we suggest, but that is where we win and they lose. Our treatment does improve future outcomes every time.

I know that even though our TACT trial is not as effective as my current protocol for treating heart disease where I can usually discontinue all cardiac medications shortly after the patient goes on my total heart support program (Beyond Chelation-Improved,  Boluoke, Acetyl Carnitine, Ubiquinol, ACS, Zeo Gold, etc). However, most patients resent paying out of pocket for natural treatment that treats the causes. They still like their dangerous drugs that are now are at least the 4th leading cause of death in America. Their drugs are subsidized by our health care system.  It seems that if poison is free and real non-toxic health-care costs money, many will take their poison almost religiously. But here an expert on this says that cardiac perfusion studies are not really helping. That is because they are being treated under a defective outmoded paradigm. I use that same impaired perfusion study to motivate my patients to get well and stay well but not to  just have a stent put in and live on some “blockers’ for the rest of their lives.  It sounds as though the king is wearing no clothes and some are willing to point it out!


Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute



August 27, 2009 (Atlanta, Georgia) — Medical imaging procedures expose many nonelderly patients to substantial doses of ionizing radiation, according to the results of a new study [1]. Myocardial perfusion imaging alone accounts for 22% of the radiation dose from all study procedures, while computed-tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen, pelvis, and chest account for nearly 38%, report investigators.

“Our findings that in some patients worrisome radiation doses from imaging procedures can accumulate over time underscores the need to improve their use,” write lead investigator Dr Reza Fazel (Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA) and colleagues. “Unlike the exposure of workers in healthcare and the nuclear industry, which can be regulated, the exposure of patients cannot be restricted, largely because of the inherent difficulty in balancing the immediate clinical need for these procedures, which is frequently substantial, against the stochastic risks of cancer that would not be evident for years, if at all.”

The analysis, which studied 952 420 adults aged 18 to 64 years in five US cities, is published in the August 27, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
During the study period, which ran from 2005 to 2007, 655 613 adults underwent at least one imaging procedure associated with radiation exposure. The mean effective dose was 2.4 mSv per person per year, although a wide distribution was noted. Moreover, the proportion of subjects undergoing procedures and their mean doses varied according to age, sex, and city. For example, approximately 50% of adults aged 18 to 34 years underwent a medical imaging procedure requiring radiation, whereas 86% of adults 60 to 64 years of age were sent for similar testing. Women also underwent imaging procedures significantly more often than men.