From the film:
NARRATOR (reading along with title card of Dr. Nicholas Patronas):
During this trial, one of the National Cancer Institute’s leading experts, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, a board-certified radiologist since 1973, professor of radiology at Georgetown University, and founder of the neuroradiology section of the National Cancer Institute [SOURCE: NIH Staff Pages]—recognized the absurdity of the Texas Medical Board’s case against Burzynski, put his own career on the line and flew himself to Texas to testify on Dr. Burzynski’s behalf. Dr. Patronas testified under oath his role at the National Cancer Institute.

NARRATOR (reading along with the official court transcript from the May 24, 1993 hearing): [SOURCE: Original complete court transcript of the entire testimony 1993]

Q (Jaffe): Basically, just in layman’s terms, you do all of the imaging work and interpretation for the National Cancer Institute’s testing of drugs?

A (Dr. Patronas): Exactly. That’s my job, to assess the effectiveness of the drugs that are given there.

Q (Jaffe): Did there come a time when you became aware of Dr. Burzynski?

A (Dr. Patronas): Yes, the National Cancer Institute asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientists, and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute. I was called as an expert in assessing the images to evaluate the effectiveness of his treatment. The basic conclusion, was that in five of the patients with brain tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared.

Q (Jaffe): And that’s part of what you do at the hospital, is to evaluate treatments on brain cancer patients? A: Well, since I am the neuroradiologist I see all brain tumors. And I see a large volume of them.

Q (Jaffe): You testified that five of the patients had their tumors resolved, they all...

A (Dr. Patronas): Disappeared.

Q (Jaffe): Disappeared? Can you give us some kind of context of that? How often does that happen? Just by spontaneous remission?

A (Dr. Patronas): I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs. The available treatments rarely produce results like that. The only medication, the only treatment, which I think is a last resort, is radiation therapy. Conventional chemotherapy is—provides very little, nothing, basically. So when this happens it is very rare. In these cases, all of the patients had already failed radiation.

Q (Jaffe): What happens with these patients, who failed radiation, with brain cancer?

A (Dr. Patronas): That’s it. They die.

Q (Jaffe): You are saying, that if someone has already failed radiation, there’s not much else?

A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing to offer, exactly.

Q (Jaffe): And there is nothing that you can do at the National Cancer Institute?

A (Dr. Patronas): Nothing we can do, not at this present time.

Q (Jaffe): What about these five patients? How come they lived?

A (Dr. Patronas): Well, it’s amazing, the fact that they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and the side effects of most aggressive treatments are worse than the tumor itself, so these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn’t have major side effects. So I think it’s impressive and unbelievable.

Q (Jaffe): How many times have you seen this in your experience? How often does this happen?

A (Dr. Patronas): I don’t. I have not seen it at any time.

Q (Jaffe): Now, let me ask you your opinion or advice. Based on what you have seen, what would happen, let’s say, for some reason Dr Burzynski’s brain tumor patients can’t get his medicine anymore, and have to go off treatment. What’s going to happen to them?

MR. HELMCAMP (prosecutor): Objection, Your Honor, not relevant.

MR. JAFFE (defense): I think it is relevant. That’s really the issue we are advocating in this case.

JUDGE: Overruled.

A (Dr. Patronas): I think these patients will die.

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=83

yes, potentially harmful.

but not my number 1 issue at the moment. i'm waffling around with which issue is number 1.

oops sorry, didnt mean to to make this a profile reply.
In reply to this comment by nock:
So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

even still, i'm not too terribly worried about the radiation issue for most of the general population. you will be exposed to far more radiation during your flight.

but on top of this being a 4th amendment issue, i don't think needlessly exposing the entire flying population of the US to some extra radiation is an effective way to fight terrorism.


>> ^nock:

These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

OK, so can someone PLEASE for the love of everything holy, develop a mechanical device that costs around $200 to take your OWN x-rays at HOME? PLEASE? Seriously, you could buy your own tape, buy your own x-ray film, and presto: got a broken bone? Got a cavity? Just X-RAY yourself and save thousands by skipping that trip to the radiologist. If they don't do it, I will.

The clot organizes (solidifies and contracts) but the aneurysm remains a bud extending from the vessel wall. After coiling, the aneurysm is easily seen on a regular X-ray (which doesn't ordinarily show blood vessels at all) by the little ball of coils.

What is really neat about these procedures is how the interventional radiologists can manipulate those little guidewires up through all the twists and turns and into an aneurysm. They squirt some radio-opaque dye into the cerebral circulation and take an X-ray to see the vessels (angiogram). This image is stored and serves as a "roadmap" to where they need to go. Deploying coils into a broad necked aneurysm can be a little disconcerting. If the coil pops out of the aneurysm prematurely, it will flow downstream into the cerebral vessel, occlude it, and probably result in a stroke. That's why some aneurysms still have to be surgically clipped. Sometimes the structure of the aneurysm is just not right or safe for deployment of coils.