WHAT RADIATION THERAPY DOES TO THE BODY (PART 5)

Yeong Sek Yee & Khadijah Shaari

Continuing our journey, we summarize some points mentioned in THE HOPE OF LIVING CANCER FREE, published in 1999 andwritten by Dr Francisco Contreras, MD, the General Director of the Oasis of Hope Hospital in Baja California, Mexico.

Hope-of-living-cancer-free

In this book, we will learn why Dr Contreras described….radiation therapy…has proven to be another medical blunder. Why is this so?

Dr Contreras’s thoughts on the dangers of radiation therapy are summarized as follows:

  • Radiation therapy is the second line of attack. For a short time, total body radiation was used; however, that was stopped when many patients died from extreme toxicity.
  • Now radiation therapy has evolved into a localized therapy in which dosages as well as the size of the fields (areas where the radiation is beamed) have diminished significantly.
  • X-ray type beams are used to actually burn malignant cells. There are adverse reactions to the therapy because, even though the fields are limited, the beam will go (within the field) through benign as well as malignant cells.
  • Radiation therapy, in which we place so much faith a few decades ago, has proven to be another medical blunder. Motivated by the desperation of failure, radiation therapists have dreamed up new ways of applying increasingly aggressive doses to their patients. They have literally “burned” patients, leaving many permanently disabled. Plus, these patients have had to experience the temporary side effects of severe nausea, malaise, loss of appetite and the loss of other functions.
  • Radiation doses have to be specifically measured, and there is an air dose, skin dose and a tumour dose. The calculation has to be done by an expert, many times by the physicist. The radiation therapist does the planning to prevent the burning of the skin. The lighter the skin, the more it will be affected.
  • According to Dr Mario Soto, when the field of entry is large, there will be side effects. For example:
  • If the esophagus is touched during radiation to the chest, esophagitis, or the burning of the lining esophagus, can result.
  • In the case of cancer of the cervix or the uterus, proctittis, or burning of the lining of the rectum, can be caused.
  • In radiation to the head and neck, if radiation is given to the tongue, the salivary glands can be impacted, and the patient will be without saliva.

NB: Dr Mario Soto is the clinical oncologist at the Oasis of Hope Hospital where Dr Francisco Contreras is the Director General.

In a later book “50 CRITICAL CANCER ANSWERS” published in 2013 which Dr Contreras co-authored with Daniel E. Kennedy, M.C., both authors discussed Radiation: A New Era of Precision.

50 critical answers

Although researchers have worked hard to hone in the radiation onto the tumours while shielding the normal cells, there are still limitations to date. These are their comments:

  • Despite the improvements in 3D and 4D image-guided radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and proton therapy to target tumours more precisely, exposure and injury to surrounding tissues and organs with serious and permanent side effects still limits the amount of radiation therapy that can be administered to a patient undergoing cancer treatment.
  • Furthermore, the state-of-the-art technology, developed to increase efficacy and reduce injury, is so complex that human and mechanical error is inevitable due to software flaws, faulty programming, poor safety procedures, or inadequate staffing and training. The problem is compounded by how difficult radiation injuries are to identify.
  • Even with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a serious complication exists. Most tumours “move with us” when we breath, or with peristalsis (the natural movement of our bowels); though this shifting is subtle, high-dose radiation still burns the normal tissue that moves into the beam.
  • Complications due to organ damage and radiation-induced cancers are not apparent for many years, even decades; meanwhile insufficient dosing is impossible to detect or interpreted as failure to respond to treatment.
  • According to the New York Times, accidents are chronically under-reported. In June 2010, a Philadelphia hospital gave the wrong radiation dose to more than 90 patients with prostate cancer, and in 2005 a Florida hospital disclosed that 77 brain cancer patients had received 50% more radiation than prescribed because one of the most powerful and supposedly precise-linear accelerators had been programmed incorrectly for nearly a year. The article’s author concluded, “ Regulators and researchers can only guess how often radiotherapy accidents occur”

According to the authors, ionizing radiation damages cellular molecules in both direct and indirect ways. It splits directly hit molecules into highly reactive fragments known as free radicals. These, in turn, can attack other molecules they encounter in a continuing and damaging chain reaction.

  • One key damage target in irradiated cells is DNA, which acts as a crucial blueprint for cellular function. Severe damage to DNA can induce cell death, and this effect is an important mediator of lethal radiation toxicity.
  • Radiation can attack DNA directly, but more often DNA is damaged by hydroxyl radicals formed when radiation interacts with water molecules in the body. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

It is extremely tragic and incomprehensible that the medical (or cancer) establishment still uses ionizing radiation that is clearly proven and known to be carcinogenic (as established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer).

It is also inconceivable that such conventional cancer treatments should cause so much pain, agony and money and then the patient has to suffer another form of cancer, heart disease or disorders to the bones, etc. Hence the cycle of treatment has to be repeated. 

Is this why conventional cancer treatment is referred to as “the Cancer Industry?”  Is this healing or is it “xxxx”? 

We welcome your opinion.

Advertisements