1

Published by The Arthritis Trust

Copyright 1998

All Rights Reserved by Authors

Fall 1998

Dedicated to Eradicating Rheumatoid Disease From the Earth

The Arthritis Trust

Dedicated to Eradicating Rheumatoid Disease From the Earth

The Arthritis Trust

(continued on page 2)

Paul A. Goldberg, M.P.H., D.C.

ARTHRITIS/RHEUMATISM:

THE FORGOTTEN PATIENTS

The Rheumatic Disease Patient in the Doctors Office

By Paul A. Goldberg, M.P.H., D.C.

PART THREE (OF FOUR PARTS)

(continued on page 4)

The patient with R.D. inevitably becomes distressed and depressed

under standard medical care. Turning to their Allopathic Physician

[traditional] they are told that there “is no cure and that they will have

to learn to live with the disease… but that they can rely on the medi-

cal physician for drugs to suppress symptoms while allowing the dis-

ease to progress.” The patient may turn to the American Arthritis Foun-

dation, and be encouraged to join an Arthritis Foundation support group.

The tone is supportive, but the message is the same,” learn to live

with your condition and accept it as one that will continue to worsen

with time.”

Every patient should understand that The Arthritis Foundation raises

millions of dollars annually for research to “Find A Cure For Arthri-

tis” but year after year comes up empty handed. Their inablilty to find

a “cure” for arthritis is because there never will be a single cure for

arthritis/rheumatism. There are multiple etiological [causative] fac-

tors responsible in different people.

It is difficult to impress upon the

patient suffering from rheumatic dis-

ease that the Medical Rheumatologist

will not be able to halt the disease pro-

gression. To those patients I have had

over the years that have come to me

after years of going to the Medical

Rheumatologist (and have received

gold shots, corticosteroids, and other

toxic, drugs) they know what I speak

of. They not only are not improved, but

find their condition exacerbated by the

toxic side effects of the drugs they have

taken. Gold shots, methotrexate, pred-

nisone and other corticosteroids, aspi-

rin and other NSAIDS (Non-steroidal

anti-inflammatory drugs) cannot be of benefit when they:

1) Are toxic. They would not be given to a healthy person

due to their toxicity, so why give them to a sick individual?

2) Do not address the causal factors involved with the disease.

3) Aggravate physiological mechanisms involved with contrib-

uting to the disease state, e.g. corticosteriods increase intesti-

nal permeability which allows foreign materials (antigens) to

enter into the bloodstream and create inflammatory responses.

1

4) Divert the attention of the patient and doctor away from seek-

ing causal factors and allow symptom suppression to become

the modus operendi while the patient sinks farther into dis-

ease.

In light of the above, my suggestions for the Rheumatic Disease

Patient:

RECOMENDATION ONE: CHANGE FOCUS FROM SYMPTOM SUPPRES-

SION TO IDENTIFICATION OF DISEASE ETIOLOGY [CAUSATION].

Although the following article refers to mammograms, the ar-

thritic is frequently exposed to X-rays by orthopedic surgeons,

chiropractors, and rheumatologists that are unnecessary, and, in

the long-run, may be quite hazardous to health. The physician --

and you -- already know that you’ve got joint damage. The ques-

tion is not so often “How much joint damage do I have?” but

rather, “How can I halt the progress, and repair the damage?”

Although avoiding all X-rays may be impossible, one might

question first as to whether or not the X-ray being demanded has

a truly useful function for achieving wellness -- other than satis-

fying a physician’s curiosity, or protecting the physician from pos-

sible mal-practice litigation, or satisfying an unthinking medical

insurance mechanism.

JUST HOW SAFE ARE MAMMOGRAMS?

By Bill Sturgeon

In 1895, physics professor Wilhelm Roetgen announced his

discovery of X-rays. Within a month, Roentgen devised, per-

formed and published the basics of X-ray production and poten-

tial applications. He didn’t know about the cumulative nature of

tissue damage they caused in people.

In 1896, Thomas Edison’s assistant, Clarance Dully, was de-

veloping an X-ray light bulb. His hands ulcerated so badly from

X-ray exposure that Edison terminated the project. By then more

than 1,000 journal papers and 49 books had been published on

X-rays, and every major medical center in the U.S. had an X-ray

machine -- the technology had spread like wildfire.

By 1900, we knew that X-rays were deadly as well as benefi-

cial. Authorities established an occupational exposure limit of 10

rads a day. This level was thought to be safe.

In 1925, it was acknowledged that a safe dose could be had by

reducing this level by 99 percent, or to less than 50 rads per year,

and that was thought to be safe.

In 1936, the occupational X-ray dose was again lowered to 25

rads per year; this, too, was then thought to be safe.

In 1950 the established “safe” dose was again lowered -- to 5

rads per year. While this is still thought safe by some, others now

talk of dropping it to 1.5 rads per year.

During the early 1960’s, mammograms delivered between 10

and 35 rads to the breasts. This dose was thought to be safe. Dur-

ing the 1970’s when the major mammographic screening pro-

grams were launched, the mammographic dose ranged from 1 to

5 rads. This was thought to be safe. Now, the maximum dose

allowed by the U.S. FDA is 0.3 rads. This is currently thought to

be safe. Current mammograms deliver 0.2 to 0.3 rads. Acdcording

to my ongoing research into scientific literature on the subject, I

am convinced that it will cause breast cancer in some women.

The question is, “How many?”.

From the inception of our experience with penetrating radia-

tion, we have established safe exposure levels based upon cau-

tious rationale rather than data. Our experience was simply too

limited to realize the decades-delayed negative health conse-

quences of X-rays. With each and every revelation given us by

new data -- as it emerges with time -- we have found that what we

thought to be safe was, in fact, causing harm.