Did it though? I commented this on another sub-thread, but it seems to be relevant here too. Straight from the report: > MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 2

Did it though? I commented this on another sub-thread, but it seems to be relevant here too. Straight from the report: > MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). This sounds to me like the MRI showed most people were normal. It continues: > There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. Three out of 21 patients doesn't sound like a lot. The researches agree that 3 people showing something somewhat unexpected isn't significant, and it's probably due to other diseases or conditions: > The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors. Advanced structural and functional neuroimaging studies are ongoing. So it's not that "MRIs are subjective" or "are as bogus as lie detectors". Rather, it's the people forming an interpretation of what the results mean (especially those who are not experts, as we can see that the experts agreed only three of the 21 people examined show something, and it's probably unrelated). [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168