Immortalhair.org

If you read, watch television or listen to the radio, maybe you've heard of the idea of medical health screenings. Early detection sounds good, but are these "health" screens really viable or are they something to be leary of?

Over the last several years I have come to a very strong conclusion, that almost all medical screenings are more dangerous than life saving.

Many medical screenings have become more like marketing and promotional tools. At the most basic level is a blood pressure test, but most are not aware that there is simply no benefit in medically lowering blood pressure below 140/100.

In contrast, research shows those with natural, non-medicated blood pressure readings of 115/70 have fewer heart attacks. In other words, drugs offer no benefit unless your blood pressure is above 140/100. Natural methods will benefit just about anyone, and more importantly focusing on the real cause of high blood pressure is the real key to success.

I mentioned before that DEXA-scans do not measure bone strength, only density. Unfortunately this test usually leads to unnecessary treatments.

Cholesterol screenings are another promotion tool, but instead of the focus on why cholesterol maybe "too high," it is how to get it within "acceptable range," usually via a statin drug which causes many more problems that it solves. The only benefit to statin drugs is not the cholesterol lowering effect, it is the fact that they lower C-reactive protein levels (CRP), which is a measure of inflammation that often affects the arteries. 

Instead of taking a dangerous statin drug to reduce CRP levels, just take a thousand milligrams of vitamin C. 

Checking your PSA level (prostate specific antigen) is a type of screen rife with problems.  It can open up a pandora's box of problems that lead to biopies, invasive surgery leading to more problems than it solves.  PSA can be useful as an indication of inflammation, but as a prostate cancer detection tool, it cannot be relied on.

Virtually all cancer screening devices are useless. It matters not if they are the most advanced imaging machines or not, because cancer remains undetectable until millions of cells are present. Cancer is the ultimate profit generator, leading to test after test, and dangerous treatment proceeds another until "quality of life" drugs are implemented to keep pain within managable levels.

What I am stating is, there is little benefit to "early detection."

Cardiology scans looking to indicate clogged arteries are pointless. When major arteries occlude, the body naturally grows new arteries, called collaterals. Constricted arteries are not the cause of heart attacks or strokes, but regardless that's what most doctors and lay persons believe, so the surgeries continue.

Computed tomography or CT-scans are widely used for a number of screens, but are very dangerous. Avoid these unless it is a matter of life or death. Too many are used for conditions which are non-threatening.  CT-scans generate hundreds of times more radiation than a standard x-ray.

What CT-scans do well is generate billions of dollars in revenue for potentially dangerous and deadly procedures.

Mammography is another worthless screen that causes more problems than it solves. One cancer expert, Dr. Michael Baum of University College Hospital, London, I think describes mammography best by stating, 'I think there is a deception going on.' Very simply, the latest statistics show that mammograms don't save lives. And half of all women diagnosed with 'early breast cancer' may be having mastectomies for nothing.

The radiation used in mammography increases the actual risk of cancer by 10% each year, and in those who have a genetic predisposition may have over a 400% increase with each visit! If the tissue does contain cancer, the routine act of compressing the breasts just increases the risk of metastasis (cancer spread).