CT Scans

Aajonus described the radiation exposure from a CT scan as enormous. He contrasted it explicitly with a standard X-ray, in which the exposure lasts a millisecond. The extended and continuous nature of CT scanning is what makes it categorically different from a plain film image. In his own experience with radiation therapy in 1967 and 1968, he received intense beams run for 15 to 30 seconds at a time, repeated across multiple passes in a single session, continued over ten weeks. He described each pass as equivalent to over 100,000 doses of a single X-ray, and characterized the cumulative effect of ten weeks of treatment as equivalent to approximately 10,000 X-rays per treatment session. While CT scanning is not identical to radiation therapy, Aajonus drew on this lived experience and understanding of radiation biology to frame CT scanning as operating in a fundamentally different danger category than a standard X-ray taken from two angles at minimal settings.

The biological consequence of radiation exposure, in his framework, is the cauterization or hardening of living tissue. He returned repeatedly to the analogy of malleable clay fired in a kiln. Clay that is soft, permeable, and living becomes pottery, stone, or glass depending on how high the temperature is taken. At cone one or two, you get a solid ceramic mass. At cone ten or higher, you get something approaching glass. Radiation does the same thing to living tissue, converting flexible, fluid, biologically active tissue into a rigid, brittle, no-longer-permeable substance. The damage he described from his own radiation therapy, in which his entire spine was cauterized from the top to the tailbone, was the direct result of radiation being run continuously in high doses over an extended period, the same principle he applied to CT scanning.

When responding specifically to a person asking whether to undergo a CT scan to rule out emphysema, Aajonus made his reasoning explicit in a way that directly addresses how CT radiation interacts with compromised tissue. His statement was that radiation exposure from CT scans is enormous, "enough radiation to cripple already weakened lungs and bronchioles." The word cripple is precise in his framework. It means that tissue which is already dysfunctional, inflamed, partially collapsed, or congested with stored toxins becomes structurally damaged by the radiation in a way that reduces its biological capacity further. The person asking had severe lung restrictions, could not walk up hills, could not lift heavy objects, and was dependent on inhalers and prednisolone simply to function. Adding a CT scan's radiation load to tissue in that condition, Aajonus held, would vastly add to the toxic situation and weaken the person more.

He also made an epidemiological point about what a CT scan finding actually means in this context. If the chest X-ray, which delivers far less radiation, showed no emphysema clearly enough that the doctor could not confirm it and thought the problem might only be blocked bronchioles, Aajonus interpreted that as good news about the person's constitutional strength. His reasoning was that if you have to seek a CT scan to find something, what you might find is not that bad. The scan is being ordered to rule something in or out that is not already obvious on standard imaging, which means the pathology, if any, is subtle enough that the body's constitution has held it in check. From this perspective, the radiation risk of the CT scan exceeds the danger of the condition it is trying to detect.

Aajonus's position on CT scans also turned on what is done with the information once obtained. Medicine does not, in his view, look for what is stored in the lungs and bronchioles in terms of industrial chemical accumulation, which is what he considered the actual cause of conditions like emphysema or blocked bronchioles. A CT scan can show structural tissue changes, density differences, and gross anatomical findings, but it cannot identify the petrochemical compounds, heavy metals, pharmaceutical residues, or other stored toxins that he believed are responsible for producing those structural changes. This means the CT scan answer, whatever it is, does not lead the physician or the patient toward the actual corrective action, which is detoxification through diet and patience rather than pharmaceutical management or surgery.

He extended this reasoning to the question of seeking a quick fix. The drive to get a CT scan is often a desire to resolve diagnostic uncertainty rapidly and move toward some kind of definitive treatment. Aajonus held that tolerance and persistence will prevent more toxicity, and that seeking a quick fix is no answer. The implication is that the urgency motivating the CT scan request is itself part of the problem, a symptom of the unwillingness to accept the slow, sustained process of true recovery.

Aajonus did not say that CT scans are categorically impermissible under all circumstances. His qualified statement on the subject was that if movement toward ending your life is desirable rather than continuing to suffer with health limitations, then a CT scan would be appropriate. This is a blunt and unusual framing, but it reflects his consistent logic. If a person has decided that they want a rapid diagnosis leading to aggressive medical intervention, and if the implicit trade is accepting more toxicity in exchange for information that might support that intervention, then the radiation burden is consistent with that choice. He explicitly stated no judgment about ending a life one does not wish to continue. The point is not moral condemnation but a clear statement that the CT scan belongs to a category of actions that accelerate toxic damage, and that acceleration is only rational if the person has already decided that the slow path of healing is not acceptable to them.

Aajonus placed CT scans alongside MRI as technologies that rely on different but equally damaging physical forces. He noted directly that a CT scan is high radiation and that MRI is high magnetic field, describing them in the same breath as tools that detect solid matter without detecting the life or functional status of tissue. His statement was that neither tells you how much of your body is alive, only what is structurally present as dense material.

His preferred alternative for diagnostic imaging was ultrasound, which uses sound waves to map tissue density without discharging radiation into the body. He acknowledged that ultrasound images are less sharply delineated and that physicians may spend 20 minutes analyzing them rather than the 2 to 5 minutes required for CT or MRI images. He was direct about why most medical doctors prefer CT and MRI over ultrasound: their time is more important to them than the patient's health. Ultrasound was his consistent recommendation for cardiac imaging, carotid artery imaging, and urological imaging in his own medical encounters. He specifically sought out a urologist who used ultrasound rather than X-rays to diagnose his own urinary problem, and the ultrasound successfully revealed a large bladder stone without any radiation exposure.

He did note one limitation of ultrasound, which is that it can damage the auditory capabilities of a fetus if used during pregnancy, and he recommended that pregnant women avoid both ultrasound and radiation exposure entirely.

For cases where structural information is desired without radiation or strong electromagnetic fields, Aajonus also mentioned thermographic screening, which measures infrared radiation heat emitted from the body without discharging significant electromagnetic fields into it. He described it as a method that can register increased and intense blood flows to cancerous areas, if any exist, by translating that data into anatomical images.

Aajonus addressed the use of contrast agents in the context of CT scanning and X-ray imaging with particular concern. Barium is used as a contrast in CAT scans because it reflects radiation and makes the picture clearer, functioning like an internal light source that enhances image resolution. He described it as a mineral that is injected into or swallowed by the patient. His concern was that the medical and pharmaceutical industries have a financial incentive to continue using barium as a contrast because CAT scans cost $1,500 to $1,800 per scan, and barium makes those images faster to read.

His further concern was that the barium toxicity research has been deliberately constrained. As late as 1998, researchers were only allowed to take barium toxicity tests so far, and the conclusion that barium exposure leads to cancer was never formally established because the studies were not permitted to go far enough. He stated explicitly that the pharmaceutical and medical industries did not want those findings to emerge because it would threaten the use of barium in CT scanning and X-ray imaging.

He received radioactive iodine as a contrast agent during his own X-ray procedures and described the consequences at length. The official claim is that radioactive iodine has a half-life of 62 hours, meaning the body discards it quickly. He disputed this framing entirely. Examining the actual test data, he found that approximately 7 percent of the radioactive iodine exits through urine and approximately 24 percent exits through feces in the first day. The assumption that the remainder exits over the following four to five days was, in his reading, unsupported by follow-up testing. His statement was that 50 to 70 percent of the toxic radioactive material injected as a contrast remains in the body indefinitely, and that the body may require tens of thousands of years to fully discharge it in his framework's understanding of radioactive half-life, which he placed at 58,000 years for a full life. He reported still discharging radioactive iodine from imaging procedures he underwent decades earlier.

The broader principle he drew from this was that even naturally occurring minerals in the body, such as iodine and cobalt, can be rendered radioactive by X-ray or CT scan radiation, and will remain radioactive from 25,000 to 50,000 years once activated. Those radioactive minerals then irritate and damage the cells in their area continuously, which can cause pain, cellular disease, and over time cancer.