Re:MRI/PET

[Guest guest]

My reason for avoiding the CT-Scan, which is different from an MRI, is because

these scans some say are equal to 100 Chest X-rays. I don't know where PET

scans fit in the picture.

I know that when looking for certain cancers, MRIs are not as effective but I

only know that for Bladder cancers.

Do the best you can regarding care and don't jump at spending what little

resources you say you have on diagnostic measures that may or may not provide

you with an accurate answer.

My last CT-Scan was a False Negative meaning that it falsely reported I had no

cancer evident......or at least that is what the Radiologist determined. That

is why it is my 'last' CT-Scan.

Why expose an already sick organ to bombardment of such powerful rays and with

no assurance it will be accurate?

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

--Joe C: I think my nauturopath has a valid reason for requestiong

some sort of follow up look at this thing. HIs opinion is its worse

and needs to be removed, mine is that its not worse and he simply

sees to many patients and how in the world could he possibly

remember me only after one vist months ago. I know you're right

about resources but I think I need to schedule the MRI just for

peace of mind. I am healed and thats what I am professing. Frann

- In , " JCasatron " <jcastron1@...> wrote:

>

> My reason for avoiding the CT-Scan, which is different from an

MRI, is because these scans some say are equal to 100 Chest X-

rays. I don't know where PET scans fit in the picture.

>

> I know that when looking for certain cancers, MRIs are not as

effective but I only know that for Bladder cancers.

>

> Joe C.

>

>